DOCSLIB.ORG

Indecency Four Years After <I>Fox

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository UF Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2017 Indecency Four Years After Fox Television Stations: From Big Papi to a Porn Star, An Egregious Mess at the FCC Continues Clay Calvert University of Florida Levin College of Law, [email protected] Minch Minchin Keran Billaud Kevin Bruckenstein Tershone Phillips Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub Part of the Communications Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Clay Calvert, Minch Minchin, Keran Billaud, Kevin Bruckenstein & Tershone Phillips, Indecency Four Years After Fox Television Stations: From Big Papi to a Porn Star, An Egregious Mess at the FCC Continues, 51 U. Rich. L. Rev. 329 (2017) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UF Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDECENCY FOUR YEARS AFTER FOX TELEVISION STATIONS: FROM BIG PAPI TO A PORN STAR, AN EGREGIOUS MESS AT THE FCC CONTINUES Clay Calvert * Minch Minchin ** Kgran Billaud *** Kevin Bruckenstein * Tershone Phillips ***** INTRODUCTION In March 2015, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") proposed fining a Roanoke, Virginia, television station a whopping $325,000 for briefly "broadcasting extremely graphic and explicit sexual material, specifically, a vid- eo image of a hand stroking an erect penis."' The offending con- tent aired for three seconds on WDBJ Channel 7 during a 6:00 PM news segment about a former female porn star turned local volunteer rescue squad member.2 * Professor & Brechner Eminent Scholar in Mass Communication; Director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida, Gainesville. Ph.D., 1996, Stanford University; J.D., 1991, McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific; B.A., 1987, Stanford University. ** Graduate Research Fellow, Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project. M.A., 2014, University of Florida; B.S., 2011, University of Florida. *** Graduate Research Fellow, Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project. M.A., 2014, University of Florida; B.A., 2012, Emory & Henry College. **** Graduate Research Fellow, Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project. B.S., 2014, University of Florida. ***** Graduate Research Fellow, Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project. B.S., 2014, University of Florida. 1. WDBJ Television, Inc., 30 FCC Rcd. 3024, 3024 (Mar. 23, 2015) (notice of appar- ent liability). 2. Id. at 3025. 329 UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND LAW REVIEW [Vol. 51:329 At first blush, the FCC's proposed indecency fine3 seems like a legal slam dunk. As media attorney Harry Cole wryly writes, "[e]rect penises (and the manipulation thereof) are well outside the range of conventional prime-time acceptability."4 However, a closer inspection of the facts suggests-and this ar- ticle, in turn, argues-that it is much more complicated. Jeffrey Marks, the station's president and general manager, contends that "[i]nclusion of the image was purely unintentional"' because it "was small and outside the viewing area of the video editing screen."6 The offending visual was taken from "a video screen grab of an adult website showing the subject of the report (who was neither nude nor engaged in sexual activity)."7 The image, in fact, would not have been visible in "the analog small-screen world of a prior generation."' Nonetheless, in concluding the newscast was indecent under its current definition of that contested term,9 the FCC reasoned that: (1) "the depiction of the sexual manipulation of an erect penis was extremely graphic and explicit;"1 (2) the three-second duration of that image "was sufficient to attract and hold viewers' atten- tion;"'1 and (3) "the stroking of an erect penis on a broadcast pro- gram is shocking."" These reasons align with a trio of factors the 3. Indecent speech is one of three categories of content the FCC may target for fines. See 18 U.S.C. § 1464 (Supp. II 2015) (providing that "[w]hoever utters any obscene, inde- cent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.") (emphasis added). 4. Harry Cole, FCC Flexes Its Indecency Muscle-Despite Long Hiatus and Unclear Standard, CoMMLAwBLOG (Mar. 27, 2015), http://www.commlawblog.com/2015/03/arti cles/broadcast/fcc-flexes-its-indecency-muscle-despite-long-hiatus-and-unclear-standard-2/. 5. Ralph Berrier Jr., FCC Hits WDBJ With Proposed $325,000 Indecency Fine, ROANOKE TIMES (Mar. 23, 2015), http://www.roanoke.com/news/local/roanoke/fcc-hits- wdbj-with-proposed-indecency-fine/articlef9c2alb6-f9a-50a9-8f9b-d02c0f2079ac.html. 6. Id. 7. Scott R. Flick, Indecency Meets Big-Screen TVs: FCC Proposes Mammoth $325K Fine, CoMMLAwCENTER (Mar. 23, 2015), http://www.commlawcenter.com/2015/03/indecen cy-meets-big-screen-tvs-fcc-proposes-mammouth-325k-fine.html. 8. Id. 9. The FCC defines indecency as 'language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities." See infra note 171 and accompanying text. 10. WDBJ Television, 30 FCC Rcd. at 3029. 11. Id. 12. Id. 20171 INDECENCY FOUR YEARS AFTER FCC typically weighs to determine if a depiction of sexual organs or activities is "patently offensive" and, in turn, indecent.13 Travis LeBlanc, 4 head of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, trumpeted the fine in a press release. "Our action here sends a clear signal that there are severe consequences for TV stations that air sexually explicit images when children are likely to be watching," he proclaimed.15 The decision to fine the Roanoke station-and, in particular, to mete out "the largest fine ever for a single broadcast from a TV station"'-is startling for at least four reasons. First, former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in September 2012 directed the Commission to "focus its resources on the strongest cases that in- volve egregious indecency violations." 7 Three seconds of inadvert- ently airing, in the corner of the screen, a tiny image during the course of a news story arguably seems something far less than egregious. Compounding the problem, at least in terms of lack of' notice to broadcasters, is that the FCC "has never described how its new 'egregious' standard works in practice."'8 13. As the FCC observed when issuing its proposed monetary forfeiture against the owners of the Roanoke station: In assessing whether broadcast material is patently offensive, "the full con- text in which the material appeared is critically important." Three principle factors are significant to this contextual analysis: (1) the explicitness or graphic nature of the description or depiction; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory organs or activities; and (3) whether the material panders to, titillates, or shocks the audience. In examining these three factors, we must weigh and balance them to determine whether the broadcast material is patently offen- sive. Id. at 3027 (footnotes omitted). 14. Before joining the FCC, LeBlanc served as (1) Special Assistant Attorney General of California and a senior advisor to Attorney General Kamala Harris; (2) an attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel during the Obama Administra- tion; and (3) an attorney at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington D.C. and Keker & Van Nest LLP in San Francisco. Travis LeBlanc, Chief, Enforcement Bureau, FCC (July 18, 2014), https://www.fcc.gov/general/travis-leblanc-chief-enforcement-bureau. 15. Press Release, Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, FCC Plans Maximum Fine Against WDBJ for Broadcasting Indecent Programming Material During Evening Newscast (Mar. 23, 2015), https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs-public/attachmatch/DOC-332631Al.pdf. 16. James Eli Shiffer, Full Disclosure,STAR TRIB., Oct. 18, 2015, at 2B. 17. Doug Halonen, FCC to Back Away From a Majority of Its Indecency Complaints, THEWRAP (Sept. 24, 2012, 10:20 AM) (emphasis added), https://www.thewrap.com/fcc-back -away-maj ority-its-indececncy-complaints-57766/. 18. Cole, supranote 4. UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND LAW REVIEW [Vol. 51:329 Second, in April 2013, the FCC sought public comment on whether the egregious enforcement policy should become a per- manent practice for the Commission.9 In July of that same year, the FCC extended the comment period to August 2, 2013.2o But as of late October 2016, the FCC still had failed to decide what to do on this question, thus leaving broadcasters without legal guid- ance and fair notice regarding what is indecent. Third, the FCC had been dormant-but for three exceptions, each of which was resolved for an amount far smaller than $325,000-in enforcing its indecency policy since June 2012.21 That is when the U.S. Supreme Court in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.22 passed on a prime chance to consider the First Amendment2 3 issues raised by the FCC's indecency enforcement 19. John Eggerton, FCC Seeks Comment on 'Egregious Complaint' Indecency En- forcement Regime, BROAD. & CABLE (Apr. 1, 2013, 4:25 PM), http://www.broadcastingcable. com/news/washington/fcc-seeks-comment-egregious-complaint-indecency-enforcement-reg ine/61255; see also FCC Reduces Backlog of Broadcast Indecency Complaints by 70% (More Than One Million Complaints); Seeks Comment on Adopting Egregious Cases Poli- cy, 28 FCC Rcd. 4082 (Apr. 1, 2013) (public notice) [hereinafter FCC Reduces Backlog]. The notice for public comment was published in the Federal Register on April 19, 2013, thereby establishing May 20, 2013 as the deadline for filing comments, and June 18, 2013 as the deadline for filing reply comments; see FCC Seeks Comments on Adopting Egre- gious Cases Policy, 78 Fed.
Recommended publications
  • Brief of Petitioner for FCC V. Fox Television Stations, 07-582

    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.
  • The Confusion Surrounding the FBI's Renewed Investigation of Brett Kavanaugh; New Free Trade Deal with U.S

    The Confusion Surrounding the FBI's Renewed Investigation of Brett Kavanaugh; New Free Trade Deal with U.S

    The Confusion Surrounding The FBI's Renewed Investigation of Brett Kavanaugh; New Free Trade Deal With U.S. Will See Canada's Duty-Free Limit Raised To $150 From $20; A Year After Vegas Shooting; Trump Versus The Media; Libertarian Joins Race To Represent Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania In Congress International Wire October 2, 2018 Tuesday Copyright 2018 ProQuest Information and Learning All Rights Reserved Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC Length: 7640 words Dateline: Lanham Body FULL TEXT LOU DOBBS, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK HOST: Thanks for being with us. Good night from New York. LISA KENNEDY MONTGOMERY, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK HOST: The Senate's top Republican has a warning for Democrats. Quit delaying, obstructing, and resisting the confirmation vote for Judge Brett Kavanaugh. And it comes amid a new poll showing more Americans think that Supreme Court nominee is the target of a politically motivated smear campaign. Now, as you know, the FBI is currently investigating claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted several women back in the 1980s. Among them Dr. Christine Blasey Ford who testified against him last week. She says she's a hundred percent sure Kavanaugh drunkenly attacked her in high school. Kavanaugh of course denies everything. And moments ago President Trump defended his nominee at a rally in T-E-N-N-E-S-S-E-E, Tennessee. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Democrats are willing to do anything and to hurt anyone to get their way like they're doing with Judge Kavanaugh. They've been trying to destroy him since the very first second he was announced because they know that Judge Kavanaugh will follow the constitution as written.
  • Abstract a Case Study of Cross-Ownership Waivers

    Abstract a Case Study of Cross-Ownership Waivers

    ABSTRACT A CASE STUDY OF CROSS-OWNERSHIP WAIVERS: FRAMING NEWSPAPER COVERAGE OF RUPERT MURDOCH’S REQUESTS TO KEEP THE NEW YORK POST by Rachel L. Seeman Media ownership is an important regulatory issue that is enforced by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC, Congress, court and public interest groups share varying viewpoints concerning what the ownership limits should be and whether companies should be granted a waiver to be excused from the rules. News Corporation is one media firm that has a history of seeking these waivers, particularly for the New York Post and television stations in same community. This study conducted a qualitative framing analysis of news articles from the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal to determine if the viewpoints expressed by the editorial boards were reflected in reports on News Corp.’s attempt to receive cross-ownership waivers. The analysis uncovered ten frames the newspapers used to assist in reporting the events and found that 80% of these frames did parallel the positions the paper’s editorial boards took concerning ownership waivers. A CASE STUDY OF CROSS-OWNERSHIP WAIVERS: FRAMING NEWSPAPER COVERAGE OF RUPERT MURDOCH’S REQUESTS TO KEEP THE NEW YORK POST A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Communications by Rachel Leianne Seeman Miami University Oxford, OH 2009 Advisor: __________________________________ (Dr. Bruce Drushel) Reader: __________________________________ (Dr. Howard
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Et Al., Petitioners, V

    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 ....................................
  • Building a Better Mousetrap: Patenting

    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.
  • The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School Donald P

    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.
  • Voice of the Broadcasting Industry Volume 23, Issue 8

    Voice of the Broadcasting Industry Volume 23, Issue 8

    August 2006 Voice of the Broadcasting Industry Volume 23, Issue 8 $8.00 USA $12.50 Canada-Foreign RADIORADIO NEWS ® NEWS Coen slashes radio forecast, Boardroom drama raises TV in Univision sale We said Bob Coen’s forecast of 4% growth at both the national The auction of Univision didn’t bring the $40 per share and local level for radio seemed pretty optimistic when he made price tag that Jerry Prenechio had hoped for, but it did his 2006 forecast last December. Indeed, the market has been conclude with some excitement. After a $35.50 bid from an much, much softer and the Universal McCann Sr. VP and Director investment group that included “Mighty Morphin’ Power of Forecasting dramatically reduced the radio numbers in his sum- Rangers” mogul Haim Saban was turned down, Televisa mer revision. He now expects national (network & spot) to grow CEO Emilio Azcarraga Jean thought his group, which in- 1% and for local radio to show no growth at all. cluded the personal investment fund of Bill Gates, had the But while Coen cut his numbers for radio, newspapers and cable, inside track to negotiate from its bid of $35.75. So Azcarraga TV is having a better year than he expected. With political ad spend- got a shock when directors of Univision were called to ing already pushing up the rates that stations are able to command, vote on acceptance of a new $36.25 bid from the Saban Coen has boosted his 2006 growth forecast for both local and na- group. Directors representing Televisa and Venevision were tional spot TV, while hanging firm on his network prediction.
  • The FCC, Indecency, and Regulatory Transformations in the Shadows, 65 Admin

    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..................... ...............
  • But[T]... the Federal Communications Commission Will Not Let

    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.
  • Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

    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.
  • The Federal Communication Commission's New Enforcement

    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.
  • NXST Investor Presentation June 2021

    NXST Investor Presentation June 2021

    Nexstar Media Group, Inc. Investor Presentation Perry A. Sook, Founder, Chairman & CEO Tom Carter, President, COO & CFO JUNE 2021 Disclaimer Forward-Looking Statements This presentation includes forward-looking statements. We have based these forward-looking statements on our current expectations and projections about future events. Forward-looking statements include information preceded by, followed by, or that includes the words "guidance," "believes," "expects," "anticipates," "could," or similar expressions. For these statements, Nexstar claims the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The forward-looking statements contained in this presentation, concerning, among other things, future financial performance, including changes in net revenue, cash flow and operating expenses, involve risks and uncertainties, and are subject to change based on various important factors, including the impact of changes in national and regional economies, the ability to service and refinance our outstanding debt, successful integration of acquired television stations and digital businesses (including achievement of synergies and cost reductions), pricing fluctuations in local and national advertising, future regulatory actions and conditions in the television stations' operating areas, competition from others in the broadcast television markets, volatility in programming costs, the effects of governmental regulation of broadcasting, industry consolidation, technological developments and major world news events. Nexstar undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events discussed in this presentation might not occur. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this presentation.