DOCSLIB.ORG

For DTP Use Only\Desktop Finals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
For DTP Use Only\Desktop Finals No. In the Supreme Court of the United States FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONERS v. CBS CORPORATION, CBS BROADCASTING, INC., CBS TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., CBS STATIONS GROUP OF TEXAS L.P., AND KUTV HOLDINGS, INC. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI GREGORY G. GARRE Solicitor General Counsel of Record GREGORY G. KATSAS Assistant Attorney General MALCOLM L. STEWART MATTHEW B. BERRY Deputy Solicitor General General Counsel ERIC D. MILLER JOSEPH R. PALMORE Assistant to the Solicitor Deputy General Counsel General JACOB M. LEWIS THOMAS M. BONDY Associate General Counsel Attorney Federal Communications Department of Justice Commission Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Washington, D.C. 20554 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Federal Communications Commission acted arbi- trarily and capriciously under the Administrative Pro- cedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., in determining that the most widely viewed broadcast of public nudity in televis- ion history fell within the federal prohibitions on broad- cast indecency. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below........................................ 1 Jurisdiction........................................... 2 Statutes and regulations involved........................ 2 Statement............................................ 2 Reasons for granting the petition....................... 13 A. The decision below is inconsistent with settled principles of deference to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own precedent ................ 14 B. The petition should be held pending this Court’s decision in Fox and disposed of as appropriate in light of that decision............................. 21 Conclusion .......................................... 24 Appendix A – Court of appeals opinion (July 21, 2008, as amended on Aug. 6, 2008) ............ 1a Appendix B – Order on Reconsideration (May 31, 2006) ................................ 83a Appendix C – Forfeiture Order (Mar. 15, 2006) ....... 123a Appendix D – Judgment (July 21, 2008) .............. 184a Appendix E – Statutory provisions involved.......... 186a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 58 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1043 (1996) ......................... 2 852 F.2d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ................... 4 Boca Airport, Inc. v. FAA, 389 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2004) .......................................... 15 Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945) .......................................... 15 (III) IV Cases—Continued: Page Cassell v. FCC, 154 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 1998) .......... 15 Citizen’s Complaint Against Pacifica Found. Station WBAI (FM), In re, 56 F.C.C.2d 94 (1975) ............ 3 Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 526 F.3d 763 (D.C. Cir. 2008) . 19 Complaints Against Various Broad. Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the “Golden Globe Awards” Program, In re, 19 F.C.C.R. 4975 (2004) . 6, 10 Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their Feb. 1, 2004 Broad. of the XXXVIII Super Bowl Halftime Show, In re, 19 F.C.C.R. 19,230 (2004) .......................... 8 Complaints Regarding Various Television Broads. between Feb. 2, 2002 & Mar. 8, 2005, In re, 21 F.C.C.R. 13299 (2006) .......................... 6, 21 FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726 (1978) ............ 3 Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 489 F.3d 444 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. granted, No. 07-582 (argued Nov. 4, 2008) .................................. 6, 22 Infinity Broad. Corp., In re, 3 F.C.C.R. 930 (1987) .... 3, 4 Pacifica Found., Inc., In re, 2 F.C.C.R 2698 (1987) ..................................... 4, 15, 18 United States v. Martin, 746 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1984) .... 19 WGHB Educ. Found., In re, 69 F.C.C.2d 1250 (1978) . 19 WPBN/WTOM License Subsidiary, Inc., In re, 15 F.C.C.R. 1838 (2000) .......................... 18 Young Broad. of San Francisco, Inc., In re, 19 F.C.C.R. 1751 (2004) ..................... 8, 17, 18 V Constitution, statutes and regulations: Page U.S. Const. Amend. I................................ 3 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. 6, 10 Public Telecommunications Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-356, § 16(a), 106 Stat. 954 ...................... 2 18 U.S.C. 1464 .................................... 2, 3 47 U.S.C. 307 (2000 & Supp. V 2005) ................... 3 47 U.S.C. 309(k) .................................... 3 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(B) ............................... 2 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(D) ............................... 2 47 C.F.R.: Section 0.445(e) ................................. 19 Section 73.3999(b) ................................ 2 Miscellaneous: Industry Guidance on the Comm’ns Case Law Interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1464 & Enforcement Policies Regarding Broad. Indecency, In re, 16 F.C.C.R. 7999 (2001) ................... 4, 5, 10, 16 The Broadcast Decency Act of 2004: Hearings on H.R. 3717 Before the Subcomm. on Telecomm. and the Internet of the House Comm. on Energy & Commerce, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. (2004) ........... 7 In the Supreme Court of the United States No. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONERS v. CBS CORPORATION, CBS BROADCASTING, INC., CBS TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., CBS STATIONS GROUP OF TEXAS L.P., AND KUTV HOLDINGS, INC. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI The Solicitor General, on behalf of the Federal Com- munications Commission and the United States of Amer- ica, respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to re- view the judgment of the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Third Circuit in this case. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (App., infra, 1a- 82a) is reported at 535 F.3d 167. The orders of the Fed- eral Communications Commission (App., infra, 83a- 122a, 123a-183a) are reported at 21 F.C.C.R. 6653 and 21 F.C.C.R. 2760, respectively. (1) 2 JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals (App., infra, 184a-185a) was entered on July 21, 2008. On October 9, 2008, Justice Souter extended the time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to and including November 18, 2008. The jurisdiction of this Court is in- voked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED Pertinent provisions are set out in the appendix to this petition. App., infra, 186a-189a. STATEMENT 1. a. Federal law has long forbidden the broadcast of “obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication.” 18 U.S.C. 1464. In 1992, Con- gress supplemented that prohibition by directing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commis- sion) to “promulgate regulations to prohibit the broad- casting of indecent programming” during certain times of the day. Public Telecommunications Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-356, § 16(a), 106 Stat. 954. See Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 58 F.3d 654, 669-670 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (en banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1043 (1996). The FCC’s rules currently prohibit licensees of radio and television stations from broadcasting “any material which is indecent” between the hours of “6 a.m. and 10 p.m.” 47 C.F.R. 73.3999(b). The Commission does not regulate indecent broadcasts outside that time period. The FCC has authority to enforce the broadcast-inde- cency prohibition by, inter alia, imposing civil forfei- tures, see 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(B) and (D), or taking vio- lations into account during license-renewal proceedings, 3 see 47 U.S.C. 307 (2000 & Supp. V 2005); 47 U.S.C. 309(k). b. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), this Court upheld the constitutionality of the FCC’s authority to regulate indecent broadcasting. At issue in Pacifica was the midday radio broadcast of George Carlin’s monologue “Filthy Words.” Responding to a listener complaint, the Commission determined that the broadcast violated Section 1464. Id. at 731-732. This Court held that the Commission’s enforcement ac- tion was consistent with the First Amendment. Id. at 749-750. c. For several years after Pacifica, the Commission enforced the indecency prohibition only against “mate- rial that closely resembled the George Carlin mono- logue,” that is, material that “involved the repeated use, for shock value, of words similar or identical to those” used by Carlin. In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 3 F.C.C.R. 930, 930 ¶ 4 (1987) (Infinity Reconsideration Order). In 1987, however, the Commission determined that such a “highly restricted enforcement standard * * * was unduly narrow as a matter of law” because it “focus[ed] exclusively on specific words rather than the generic definition of indecency.” Id. at 930 ¶ 5. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that, in enforcing Section 1464, it would apply the generic indecency test articulated in Pacifica, that is, whether the material “describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs, when there is a reason- able risk that children may be in the audience.” Id. at 930 ¶¶ 2, 5 (quoting In re Citizen’s Complaint Against Pacifica Found. Station WBAI (FM), 56 F.C.C.2d 94, 98 ¶ 11 (1975)). 4 In making that change, the Commission recognized that “the question of whether material is patently offen- sive requires careful consideration of context.” Infinity Reconsideration Order, 3 F.C.C.R. at 932 ¶ 16. Despite its renewed emphasis on context, however, the Commis- sion stated that “[i]f a complaint focuses solely on the use of expletives * * * deliberate and repetitive use * * * is a requisite to a finding of indecency.” In re Pacifica Found., Inc., 2 F.C.C.R. 2698, 2699 ¶ 13 (1987). In contrast, the Commission explained, when offensive material “goes beyond the use of expletives” and in- volves “the description or depiction of sexual or excre- tory functions,” “repetition of specific words or phrases is not necessarily an element critical to a determination of indecency.” Ibid.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Balancing Actors' Gender and Skin-Color in Live Telecasts
    Toward Interactively Balancing the Screen Time of Actors Based on Observable Phenotypic Traits in Live Telecast MD NAIMUL HOQUE, Stony Brook University 154 NAZMUS SAQUIB, MIT Media Lab SYED MASUM BILLAH, Pennsylvania State University KLAUS MUELLER, Stony Brook University Several prominent studies have shown that the imbalanced on-screen exposure of observable phenotypic traits like gender and skin-tone in movies, TV shows, live telecasts, and other visual media can reinforce gender and racial stereotypes in society. Researchers and human rights organizations alike have long been calling to make media producers more aware of such stereotypes. While awareness among media producers is growing, balancing the presence of different phenotypes in a video requires substantial manual effort andcan typically only be done in the post-production phase. The task becomes even more challenging in the case of a live telecast where video producers must make instantaneous decisions with no post-production phase to refine or revert a decision. In this paper, we propose Screen-Balancer, an interactive tool that assists media producers in balancing the presence of different phenotypes in a live telecast. The design of Screen-Balancer is informed by a field study conducted in a professional live studio. Screen- Balancer analyzes the facial features of the actors to determine phenotypic traits using facial detection packages; it then facilitates real-time visual feedback for interactive moderation of gender and skin-tone distributions. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, we conducted a user study with 20 participants and asked them to compose live telecasts from a set of video streams simulating different camera angles, and featuring several male and female actors with different skin-tones.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 48 • Number 1 • January 2007
    BROADCAST EDUCATION BEA ASSOCIATION VOLUME 48 • NUMBER 1 • JANUARY 2007 Feedback [ FEEDBACK ] January 2007 (Vol. 48, No. 8) Feedback is an electronic journal scheduled for posting six times a year at www.beaweb.org by the Broadcast Education Association. As an electronic journal, Feedback publishes (1) articles or essays— especially those of pedagogical value—on any aspect of electronic media: (2) responsive essays—especially industry analysis and those reacting to issues and concerns raised by previous Feedback articles and essays; (3) scholarly papers: (4) reviews of books, video, audio, film and web resources and other instructional materials; and (5) official announcements of the BEA and news from BEA Districts and Interest Divisions. Feedback is not a peer-reviewed journal. All communication regarding business, membership questions, information about past issues of Feedback and changes of address should be sent to the Executive Director, 1771 N. Street NW, Washington D.C. 20036. SUBMISSION GUIDELINES 1. Submit an electronic version of the complete manuscript with references and charts in Microsoft Word along with graphs, audio/video and other graphic attachments to the editor. Retain a hard copy for refer- ence. 2. Please double-space the manuscript. Use the 5th edition of the American Psychological Association (APA) style manual. 3. Articles are limited to 3,000 words or less, and essays to 1,500 words or less. 4. All authors must provide the following information: name, employer, professional rank and/or title, complete mailing address, telephone and fax numbers, email address, and whether the writing has been presented at a prior venue. 5. If editorial suggestions are made and the author(s) agree to the changes, such changes should be submitted by email as a Microsoft Word document to the editor.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Self-Regulation in Turkey.Pdf
    Authors Doğan Akın is a graduate of Ankara University’s Political Science Department. He began his journalistic career at Cumhuriyet daily in 1987 and in 1999 became the news director of Milliyet newspaper. In 2008 he became the publishing director of the Doğan-Burda Magazine Group and founded the group’s first online news portal, Tempo24. In 2009, he founded T24, an online independent newspaper where he is currently editor-in-chief. Suncem Koçer (Assoc. Prof.) is an anthropologist of media and communication and a faculty member at the Faculty of Communication at Kadir Has University. Her research focuses on ethnography of media, political communication, news media, and politics of culture in Turkey and the Middle East. Koçer has also worked as a media producer. She co-produced two documentary films and worked as editor and anchor at İMC TV. She also wrote weekly columns for daily Evrensel. Murat Önok (Asst. Prof.) is an assistant professor at Koç University Law School. He holds a BA degree and Ph.D. from Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir. Önok’s fields of research are criminal law, human rights law and international criminal law. He has also taught public international law and criminology. Önok also currently serves as the Vice-President of the Turkish Press Council. Ceren Sözeri (Assoc. Prof.) is a faculty member at the Communications Department of Galatasaray University. She earned both her bachelor’s and master’s degree from that same university and received her Ph.D. from Marmara University. She writes on issues of 002 political economy of the media, media policies, freedom of the press, ethical issues, as well as discrimination and hate speech in traditional and online media in Turkey.
    [Show full text]
  • Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-271
    Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-271 Ottawa, 13 July 2004 Genex Communications inc. Québec, Quebec Application 2003-1399-0 Public Hearing at Québec, Quebec 18 February 2004 CHOI-FM – Non-renewal of licence In this decision, the Commission denies the application by Genex Communications inc. for the renewal of the broadcasting licence for the French-language commercial radio station CHOI-FM Québec. In Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2004-49, also issued today, the Commission announces a call for applications for broadcasting licences to carry on a new French- language FM station in Québec. Introduction Background 1. The Commission received an application by Genex Communications inc. (Genex, the licensee) for the renewal of the broadcasting licence for the French-language commercial radio programming undertaking CHOI-FM Québec, which expires on 31 August 2004. 2. In Acquisition of assets, Decision CRTC 97-86, 27 February 1997, the Commission authorized Genex to acquire the assets of CHOI-FM and granted it a licence that expired on 31 August 2002. In Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 2001-14, 14 December 2001 (Notice of Public Hearing 2001-14), the Commission called Genex to a public hearing because of its apparent failure to comply with the Radio Regulations, 1986 (the Regulations) regarding the submission of logger tapes and the broadcast of French- language vocal music. The Commission added that, during the licence term, it had received several complaints raising a number of concerns and that it intended to discuss at the hearing the content of CHOI-FM’s spoken word programming in light of the high standard objective stipulated in the Broadcasting Act (the Act).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Becoming a Radio DJ
    TEAM LinG - Live, Informative, Non-cost and Genuine ! © 2004 by Thomson Course Technology PTR. All rights reserved. SVP, Thomson Course No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form Technology PTR: or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, Andy Shafran recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system without written permission from Thomson Course Technology PTR, Publisher: except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review. Stacy L. Hiquet The Premier Press and Thomson Course Technology PTR logo and Senior Marketing Manager: related trade dress are trademarks of Thomson Course Technology Sarah O’Donnell PTR and may not be used without written permission. Marketing Manager: All trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Heather Hurley Important: Thomson Course Technology PTR cannot provide Manager of Editorial Services: hardware or software support. Please contact the appropriate Heather Talbot manufacturer’s technical support line or Web site for assistance. Senior Editor/Acquisitions Editor: Thomson Course Technology PTR and the author have attempted Mark Garvey throughout this book to distinguish proprietary trademarks from descriptive terms by following the capitalization style used by the Associate Marketing Managers: manufacturer. Kristin Eisenzopf and Sarah Dubois Information contained in this book has been obtained by Thomson Course Technology PTR from sources believed to be reliable. Developmental/Project/ However, because of the possibility of human or mechanical error Copy Editor: by our sources, Thomson Course Technology PTR, or others, the Brian Proffitt Publisher does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or Technical Reviewer: completeness of any information and is not responsible for any Chad Carrier errors or omissions or the results obtained from use of such information.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding WCAG 2.0
    [contents] Understanding WCAG 2.0 A guide to understanding and implementing Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 W3C Working Group Note 11 December 2008 This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20081211/ Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/ Previous version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20081103/ Editors: Ben Caldwell, Trace R&D Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison Michael Cooper, W3C Loretta Guarino Reid, Google, Inc. Gregg Vanderheiden, Trace R&D Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison Previous Editors: Wendy Chisholm (until July 2006 while at W3C) John Slatin (until June 2006 while at Accessibility Institute, University of Texas at Austin) This document is also available in these non-normative formats: Single file version Alternate Versions of Understanding WCAG 2.0 Copyright © 2008 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. Abstract This document, "Understanding WCAG 2.0," is an essential guide to understanding and using Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 [WCAG20]. It is part of a series of documents that support WCAG 2.0. Please note that the contents of this document are informative (they provide guidance), and not normative (they do not set requirements for Understanding WCAG 2.0 Page 1 conforming to WCAG 2.0). See Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview for an introduction to WCAG, supporting technical documents, and educational material. WCAG 2.0 establishes a set of Success Criteria to define conformance to the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines. A Success Criterion is a testable statement that will be either true or false when applied to specific Web content.
    [Show full text]
  • WERA Radio Broadcasting Policy.Nov 2019.Pdf
    WERA Policy Handbook Revision date: November 2019 Section I: General Information A. Arlington Independent Media WERA is a project of Arlington Independent Media (AIM) a 501(c)3 non-profit organization whose mission is to promote and facilitate free speech by providing access to established and emerging media. A fifteen-member board of directors governs the organization, makes policy, charts the strategic direction of the corporation, and is responsible for the financial and overall health of the organization. The board hires and supervises an executive director who hires and supervises a staff. AIM provides a media training, production, and distribution facility to the public in fulfillment of the Arlington County cable franchise agreements’ public access requirements. AIM’s funding comes from a combination of grants made by Arlington County as pass-through payments from the two cable franchise holders; payments made by members for goods and services; and both monetary and in-kind support from the community. AIM offers a full range of both basic and advanced classes in audio, video, and other digital media. Students who achieve course certification are permitted to use the AIM production facilities for non- commercial, community-based content production. Their programs are placed on AIM’s Verizon and Comcast cable channels; on the AIM website; on the AIM YouTube channel; or on WERA-LP 96.7 FM and the wera.fm website. Certified producers pay small fees to use most facilities and equipment. These fees can largely be offset by spending “volunteer credits” that are earned by volunteering to help other producers complete their projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Observations from a Series of National Case Studies
    Governance of Online Intermediaries: Observations from a Series of National Case Studies The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Urs Gasser & Wolfgang Schulz, Governance of Online Intermediaries: Observations from a Series of National Case Studies (Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2015-5, Feb. 18, 2015). Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:16140636 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP Research Publication No. 2015-5 February 18, 2015 Governance of Online Intermediaries Observations From a Series of National Case Studies Urs Gasser Wolfgang Schulz This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The Berkman Center for Internet & Society Research Publication Series: https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2015/online_intermediaries The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2566364 23 Everett Street • Second Floor • Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 +1 617.495.7547 • +1 617.495.7641 (fax) • http://cyber.law.harvard.edu • [email protected] Urs Gasser and Wolfgang Schulz GOVERNANCE OF ONLINE INTERMEDIARIES: OBSERVATIONS FROM A SERIES OF NATIONAL CASE STUDIES February 18, 2015 The Berkman Center for Internet & Society Research Publication Series WITHIN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This synthesis and case study series would not have been possible without the dedication and hard work of many contributors from the Network of Centers (NoC) and the Berkman Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Saleable Compromises
    MARKO ALA-FOSSI SALEABLE COMPROMISES Quality Cultures in Finnish and US Commercial Radio ACADEMIC DISSERTATION To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Tampere, for public discussion in the auditorium A1 of the University Main Building, Kalevantie 4, Tampere, on February 26th, 2005 at 12 o’clock. University of Tampere Tampere 2005 Marko Ala-Fossi SALEABLE COMPROMISES Quality Cultures in Finnish and US Commercial Radio Media Studies ACADEMIC DISSERTATION University of Tampere, Department of Journalism and Mass Communication FINLAND Copyright © Tampere University Press and Marko Ala-Fossi Sales Bookshop TAJU P.O. BOX 617 33014 University of Tampere Finland Tel. +358 3 215 6055 Fax +358 3 215 7685 email taju@uta.fi http://granum.uta.fi Cover: Mia Ristimäki Layout: Aila Helin Printed dissertation ISBN 951-44-6214-9 Electronic dissertation Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 414 ISBN 951-44-6213-0 ISSN 1456-954X http://acta.uta.fi Tampereen Yliopistopaino Oy – Juvenes Print Tampere 2005 “We all can buy the same records, play them on the same type of turntable and we can all hire someone to talk. The difference in radio is like the difference in soap – it depends on who puts on the best wrapper.” (Gordon McLendon in 1961, cited in Garay 1992, 70) The p.d., who had been with the station nine years, asked: “Do you think we can maintain our reputation for quality programming and still pull in a much larger audience?” The general manager leaned back in his armchair, thumped his sales reports, and said, “My defi nition of quality radio is whatever the No.
    [Show full text]
  • FCC V. CBS Corp., 556 U.S
    No. 11-1240 In the Supreme Court of the United States FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONERS v. CBS CORPORATION, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR. Solicitor General Counsel of Record STUART F. DELERY Acting Assistant Attorney General AUSTIN C. SCHLICK MALCOLM L. STEWART General Counsel Deputy Solicitor General PETER KARANJIA JOSEPH R. PALMORE Deputy General Counsel Assistant to the Solicitor JACOB M. LEWIS General Associate General Counsel THOMAS M. BONDY C. GREY PASH, JR. Attorney Counsel Department of Justice Federal Communications Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Commission [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20554 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Federal Communications Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administra­ tive Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., in determining that a widely viewed television broadcast of public nu­ dity fell within federal prohibitions on broadcast inde­ cency. (I) PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners are the Federal Communications Com­ mission and the United States of America. Respondents are CBS Corporation, CBS Broadcast­ ing, Inc., CBS Television Stations, Inc., CBS Stations Group of Texas L.P., and KUTV Holdings, Inc. (II) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below........................................ 1 Jurisdiction........................................... 2 Statutes and regulations involved........................ 2 Statement ............................................ 2 Reasons for granting the petition....................... 13 Conclusion .......................................... 18 Appendix A – Opinion of the court of appeals (Nov. 2, 2011) ........................ 1a Appendix B – Order on reconsideration (May 4, 2006) ...................... 112a Appendix C – Forfeiture order (Feb.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Law Handbook for Southern Africa Volume 2
    Media Law Handbook for Southern Africa Volume 2 Justine Limpitlaw www.kas.de KAS Media Justine Limpitlaw Programme Justine Limpitlaw — BA LLB (Wits) Sub-Sahara Africa LLM (Yale) — is an independent communications law consultant The Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung based in Johannesburg, South (KAS) is an independent, Africa, and has been a visiting non-profit German political adjunct professor with the LINK foundation that aims to Centre at the University of the strengthen democratic forces Witwatersrand. around the world. KAS runs media programmes in Africa, Asia She specialises in and South East Europe. media, broadcasting, telecommunications, and space KAS Media Africa believes that and satellite law. Justine has a free and independent media worked with many of South is crucial for democracy. As Africa’s leading media companies such, it is committed to the as well as with freedom of development and maintenance expression-focused NGOs. of a diverse media landscape on the continent, the monitoring role She has given lectures on various of journalism, as well as ethically communications law issues based political communication. at a number of universities including the University of the Witwatersrand, the University of Pretoria, Rhodes University, as well as Columbia and Oxford universities. Media Law Handbook for Southern Africa Volume 2 Media Law Handbook for Southern Africa Volume 2 by Justine Limpitlaw Published by Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Media Programme Sub-Sahara Africa 60 Hume Road PO Box 55012 Dunkeld 2196 Northlands Johannesburg 2116 Republic of South Africa Telephone: + 27 (0)11 214-2900 Telefax: +27 (0)11 214-2913/4 www.kas.de/mediaafrica Twitter: @KASMedia Facebook: @KASMediaAfrica ISBN: 978-1-928535-57-7 (print) 978-1-920707-42-2 (e-book) © Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 2021 This publication is an open source publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Liveness in Interactive Systems
    Liveness in Interactive Systems Sang Won Lee Abstract Virginia Tech Creating an artifact in front of public offers an opportunity Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA to involve spectators in the creation process. For example, [email protected] in a live music concert, audience members can clap, stomp and sing with the musicians to be part of the music piece. Live creation can facilitate collaboration with the spectators. The questions I set out to answer are what does it mean to have liveness in interactive systems to support large-scale hybrid events that involve audience participation. The no- tion of liveness is subtle in human-computer interaction. In this paper, I revisit the notion of liveness and provide def- initions of both live and liveness from the perspective of designing interactive systems.1 In addition, I discuss why arXiv:1910.02377v1 [cs.HC] 6 Oct 2019 liveness matters in facilitating hybrid events and suggest future research works. Author Keywords Liveness; User Involvement; Real-time collaboration ACM Classification Keywords H.5.m [Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI)]: Miscellaneous; See [http://acm.org/about/class/1998/]: for full list of ACM classifiers. This section is required. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 4.0. 1The large portion of this paper appear in [14]. Introduction produced, performed, or transmitted, such as a musical per- Creating an artifact — such as writing a book, developing formance, TV show, or sporting event. The concurrence software, or performing a piece of music — is often lim- of action and perception implies live settings include two ited to those with domain expertise.
    [Show full text]