Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued April 18 – 19, 1978
Decided July 3, 1978


Full case name:	Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, et al.

Citations:	438 U.S. 726; 98 S. Ct. 3026; 57 L. Ed. 2d 1073; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 135; 43 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 493; 3 Media L. Rep. 2553

Prior history:	Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Subsequent history:	Rehearing denied, 439 U.S. 883 (October 2, 1978)

Holding

Because of the pervasive nature of broadcasting, it has less First Amendment protection than other forms of communication. The F.C.C. was justified in concluding that Carlin's "Filthy Words" broadcast, though not obscene, was indecent, and subject to restriction.

Court membership

Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens

Case opinions

Majority by: Stevens
Joined by: Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Powell
Concurrence by: Powell
Joined by: Blackmun
Dissent by: Brennan
Joined by: Marshall
Dissent by: Stewart
Joined by: Brennan, White, Marshall

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amend. I; 18 U.S.C. § 1464

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that defined the power of the Federal Communications Commission over indecent material as applied to broadcasting.

[edit] Facts

In 1973, a father complained to the FCC that his son had heard the George Carlin routine "Filthy Words" broadcast one afternoon over WBAI, a Pacifica Foundation FM radio station in New York City. (Carlin's routine included a discussion of the "seven dirty words": shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, mother-fucker, and tits.) Pacifica received a sanction from the FCC, in the form of a letter of reprimand, for allegedly violating FCC regulations which prohibited broadcasting "indecent" material. The affair became popularly known as "the Carlin case" even though Carlin himself was not a party to the lawsuit.

[edit] Holding

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC action, by a vote of 5 to 4, ruling that the routine was "indecent but not obscene." The Court accepted as compelling the government's interests in 1) shielding children from patently offensive material, and 2) ensuring that unwanted speech does not enter one's home. The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience, and gave the FCC broad leeway to determine what constituted indecency in different contexts.