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. It discusses the insuperable First Amendment considerations that will trouble the Commission in its efforts, including the current exceptions that swallow the rationale for the regulations and the dramatically changed media landscape that render them unsuccessful. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................. vii-viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 Broadcast Indecency Regulatory Recap .................................................... 3 Problem, Scope, and Purpose .................................................................. 10 Roadmap of Chapters ............................................................................... 10 Research Questions ................................................................................... 11 Hypothesis ................................................................................................. 11 Methodology ............................................................................................. 13 CHAPTER 2: SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................. 14 Broadcast Scholarly Vehicles ................................................................... 15 Changes in the Media Landscape ............................................................ 16 Unique Approaches .................................................................................. 28 Academic, Constitutional, and First Amendment Journals .................. 29 Book Publication ....................................................................................... 38 How Children Interact with Media Content .......................................... 39 The FCC, Broadcast Indecency, and America’s War on Sex ................. 44 Blasphemy and Profanity ......................................................................... 48 CHAPTER 3: THE EVOLUTION OF BROADCAST REGULATION: A HISTORY OF EVENTS .................................................................................................. 51 Early Activity ............................................................................................ 51 The 1960s: Licensee Pacifica Foundation Rocks the Boat, But the Government Looks the Other Way ............................................ 55 The 1970s: The Jack Straw Memorial Foundation, and Jerry Garcia Push the Envelope: This Time, However, Government Guidance is Far Different ................................................... 57 The 1980s and 1990s: More Changes in FCC Enforcement Direction and Howard Stern Has a Target on His Back ........................ 68 Year 2000 Brings with It New FCC Leadership in Michael Powell: Powell, Working in Concert with President George W. Bush, Initiate the Most Aggressive FCC Enforcement to Date ............. 77 The Commission Seeks Guidance on Direction of Broadcast Indecency Enforcement ............................................................................ 96 iv CHAPTER 4: SPECIAL INTEREST ACTIVIST GROUPS: TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY? ............................................................................................... 107 Parents Television Council ..................................................................... 107 PTC Becomes Especially Visible Shortly After Y2K ............................. 108 Other Special Interest Activist Groups.................................................. 115 Does the Threat of FCC Action, Prompted by the PTC, Similar Media Watchdog Organizations, and Advertisers, Chill Free Speech? ................................................................................... 118 CHAPTER 5: OVERVIEW OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, PREMISES FOR FREE SPEECH, AND CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTIONS ...................................... 128 The Holmes Dissent ................................................................................ 131 Free Speech Theories .............................................................................. 132 Alternative Methodology for Free Speech Protection.......................... 137 Vagueness and Overbreadth .................................................................. 143 Content-Based Regulation and Judicial Review................................... 147 CHAPTER 6: FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGES THE FCC FACES WITH BROADCAST REGULATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY .................................... 154 FCC Regulatory Authority ..................................................................... 154 Distinguishing Obscenity, Indecency, and Profanity .......................... 155 Government Rationales for Broadcast Regulation ............................... 164 Social Science and the “Harm” Theory ................................................. 182 CHAPTER 7: A NEW DIRECTION, GOING FORWARD: AFTER FOX II, NOW WHAT? ............................................................................................ 197 Debunking Government Rationales for Broadcast Regulation ........... 199 Overturning Pacifica ............................................................................... 202 The FCC’s Current Broadcast Regulatory Regime is Not Authorized by Pacifica ........................................................................... 203 The Second Circuit Finds the FCC’s Current Broadcast Indecency Regulatory Regime Unconstitutional.................................. 204 Judicial Review Under Strict Scrutiny................................................... 216 Parity for Broadcasters ........................................................................... 217 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 220 Future Research ....................................................................................... 221 v LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 223 Primary Sources ...................................................................................... 223 Constitutions ........................................................................................... 223 Court Cases .............................................................................................. 223 Federal Statutes ....................................................................................... 233 Secondary Sources .................................................................................. 234 Academic Journals .................................................................................. 234 Administrative Agency Reports ............................................................ 235 Books ........................................................................................................ 238 Law Reviews and Legal Journals........................................................... 242 Magazines, Print Media, and Trade Publications ................................ 262 Online Sources......................................................................................... 263 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my doctoral committee members, Bob Richards, Rob Frieden, Matt Jackson, and Tom Place for their hard work, counsel, and motivation on this project. I owe deep gratitude to the committee for their patience, as I worked through the Ph.D. program while maintaining a rather rigorous full-time faculty assignment and teaching load within the College of Liberal Arts at Penn State-University Park (hereinafter PSU). Invaluable guidance from all committee members has allowed me to become a better researcher, writer, scholar, and