No. 06-3575 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT CBS CORPORATION, CBS BROADCASTING INC., CBS TELEVISION STATIONS INC., CBS STATIONS GROUP OF TEXAS L.P., and KUTV HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioners, v. FEDERA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Communications Commssion BRIEF OF FORMR FCC OFFICIAS AS AMICI CURAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS AN IN SUPPORT OF A DECLARTION THAT INDECENCY ENFORCEMENT VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT Nancy Winkelman David Smith Schnader Harson Segal & Lewis LLP 1600 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, P A 19103 (215) 751-2000 Counsel of Record Henr Geller 3001 Veazey Terrace, NW, Apt. 702 Washington, D.C. 20008 Glen O. Robinson University of Virginia School of Law 580 Massie Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22903 (434) 924-3621 November 29,2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI AND AUTHORITY TO FILE .......................................... 1 SUMMAY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................2 ARGUMENT............................................................................................................ 3 i. THE EVOLVING STANDARS OF INECENCY REGULATION ............ 3 II. SUPER BOWL XXIII................................................................................ 11 III. THE POLITICS OF REGULATION ........................................................... 16 IV. TlI COURT'S OPTIONS.. ............................................................................ 19 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................... 23 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Actionfor Children's Television v. FCC, 852 F.2d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ...............7 Actionfor Children's Television v. FCC, 932 F.2d 1504 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ...............7 Actionfor Children's Television v. FCC, 58 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ...................7 Actionfor Children's Television v. FCC, 59 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1995) .................7 Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004).................................................4, 21, 22, 23 Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993)........................................................13 Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986) ............................ ........... ............................18 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)...................................................12 Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).........................................................3,4,22 Monroe Communications Corp. v. FCC, 900 F.2d 351 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ..................8 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)...........................................13 Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986). .............................14 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) .......................................................5, 19,20,22 Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) ........................................................4, 22 Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989)............5, 19 Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).........................................................12 u.s. v. ExCitement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 464 (1994).............................................12 United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000)...4,22,23 Statutes and Legislative History 18 U. S. C. § 1464.............................................................................................. passim 47 U. S. C. § 223 ...................................................................................................... ..20 47 U. S. C. § 231 ....................................................................................................... .21 47 U.S.C. § 503 ............................................................................................12, 13, 17 Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, Pub. L. 109-235, § 2, 120 Stat. 491.............17 11 H.R. Res. 500, 108th Congo (2004) .........................................................................17 S. Res. 283, 108th Congo (2003) ..............................................................................17 Administrative Decisions Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming, 21 FCC Rcd. 2503 (2006) ...............................23 Clear Channel Broadcasting Licensees, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd. 6773 (2004)...........8, 10 Complaint Against Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the UPN Network Program "Buff the Vampire Slayer, " 19 FCC Rcd. 15995 (2004) .............................................................................................. ..14 Complaints Against Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the "Golden Globe Awards" Program, 19 FCC Rcd. 4975 (2004) .............9, 10 Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their December 31, 2004 Broadcast of the Program "Without a Trace," 21 FCC Rcd. 2732 (2006) .....................................................................................11 Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their February 1, 2004 Broadcast of the Super Bowl XXIII Halfime Show, 21 FCC Rcd. 2760 (2006)........................................................................... passim Complaints Regarding Various Broadcasts Between February 2,2002 and March 8, 2002, FCC 06-166 (reI. Nov. 6,2006) ...........................................11 Complaints Regarding Various Television Broadcasts Between February 2, 2002 and March 8, 2005,21 FCC Rcd. 2664 (2006) ...........................10, 11,25 Harriscope of Chicago, 3 FCC Rcd. 757 (1988)......................................................8 Industr Guidance on the Commission's Case Law Interpreting 18 U.S. C. § 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast Indecency, 16 FCC Rcd. 7999 (2001)................................................................................. ..8, 9 Infnity Broadcasting Operations Inc., 18 FCC Rcd. 6915 (2003) ..........................10 Pacifca Foundation Station WBAI(FM), New York, N.Y., 56 F.C.C.2d 94 (1975) ............................................................................................................ passim Petition for Reconsideration of a Citizen's Complaint Against Pacifca Foundation Station WBAI (FM), New York, N. Y., 59 F.C.C.2d 892 (1976) ...................................................................................................................... 5 111 The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004: Hearings on H.R. 3717 Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 108th Congo (2004) ........................................................................................................... .4, 9, 25 WGBH Educ. Found., 69 F.C.C.2d 1250 (1978).......................................................6 Other Authorities Federal Communications Commssion, The Public and Broadcasting, 1999 WL 391297 (June 1999) ............................ ............. ....................................1 0 Frederick Schauer, Categories and the First Amendment: A Play in Thee Acts, 34 Vand. L. Rev. 265 (1981) .................................. ......................................6 Kimberly Zarkin, Anti-Indecency Groups and the Federal Communications Commission: A Study in the Politics of Broadcast Regulation (2003) ................................................................................................ .17 Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law (1st ed. Supp. 1979) .........................6 iv INTEREST OF AMCI AND AUTHORITY TO FILE Amici are former officials of the FCC who oppose the recent indecency enforcement actions of the Commssion. Henr Geller, curently retired, served as General Counsel of the FCC from 1964 to 1970, and as special assistant to the Chairman in 1970. After leaving the FCC Geller was Admnistrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Admnistration from 1978 to 1981. Glen Robinson, curently the David A. and Mar Harson Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, served as Commssioner from 1974 to 1976, and later was U.S. Ambassador to the World Admnistrative Radio Conference from 1978 to 1979. As former officials of the FCC, Amici have been personally associated with the indecency controversy in the past, and we are not without sympathy for the FCC's I) However, concerns. (One of us paricipated in the FCC's 1975 Pacifca decision. we have been dismayed by a series of recent decisions that have transformed a hitherto restrained policy of policing only the most extreme cases of indecent broadcast programmng into a censorship crusade that wil put a chill on all but the blandest of program fare. Amici have authority to file this brief pursuant to Rule 29, Fed. R. App. P., the paries having granted their consent. i Pacifca Found. Station WBAI(FM), New York, NY., 56 F.C.C.2d 94 (1975). 1 SUMRY OF ARGUMNT The FCC's policy towards broadcast indecency has evolved from a restrained effort to regulate clear, flagrant instances of indecent language by a handful of broadcast licensees and broadcast performers into an ever-expandig campaign against ordinar radio and television programmng. In pursuit of an otherwise laudable policy of protecting children against exposure to extremely offensive