FCC's indecency policies "unconsitutionally vague"

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that the FCC's indecency policy is "unconstitutionally vague." Damned straight! The FCC will most likely appeal this decision, sending the issue back to the Supreme Court, who could actually force the feds to finally clarify the rules for what is deemed unsuitable for broadcast.

Currently, the FCC's guidance on obscenity, indecency, and profanity reads as follows (more here):

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

• An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

• The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and

• The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The FCC has defined broadcast 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.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The FCC has defined profanity as “including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.”

'Vague' might be an understatement! Imagine trying to apply this to each piece you want to air in the course of a 3-hour radio show. In any case, I'm hoping the FCC appeals this decision because I can't wait for the Supremes to hash it out. It could mean that a new wave of censorship will sweep the nation, it could open the floodgates, or it could make life as a broadcaster a whole lot less confusing. I'll be staying tuned...

Comments

[raga]

Fuckin' A! :)

[LJP]

So I remember in the 80s college radio used to get away with playing dirty stuff like the Stranglers' "Bring On the Nubiles". I'd like to see the day when you could play anything on the radio and not have to deal with all the censor-shit.

[K.]

censorship sucks; but there's a lot more interesting things to say about our country and the oligarchy who have ruled it for the past 40 odd years. Especially now that the public coffers have been so badly looted by the aforementioned oligarchs. Saying fuck on the air is a lot like wearing a doo-rag in prison. You can take away all of a prisoners rights, but you don't take away the doo-rag. Or you do. Either way, it's the fig leaf. Make the fight about that, and you can do everything else with impunity. Time to wise up, marks.

[WinstonSmith]

How on earth can a people view themselves as free when there is an iron-fisted prohibition on the free use of the language? The modern world must scratch their heads in amazement when they consider the USA and it's dysfunctional, dark and repressive ways. On so many counts we are in company with the worst humanity has to offer, countries such as Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China and Iran.

As Grandpa Al Lewis said live on national network radio, FUCK CENSORSHIP! (and the oppressive sociopaths who impose it).

Winston

[Cheerios]

Huhu one day we will look back on this time and laugh.

[bobo hoho]

The three-pronged test the FCC is using was established by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California (1973). I think the test was designed to be a little vague.