| FCC v. Fox Television Stations (2012) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Full case name | Federal Communications Commission, Petitioner v. Fox Television Stations, Respondent | |||||
| Docket nos. | 10-1293 | |||||
| Prior history | See here for more details. | |||||
| Questions presented | ||||||
| Are the FCC's rules on regulating speech unconstitutionally vague? | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
FCC v. Fox Television Stations (2012) is a Supreme Court case, expected to be decided in 2012, about whether the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's scheme for regulating speech is unconstitutionally vague. The case is a continuation of the 2009 case involving the same parties, which had addressed the nature of the fine itself, but did not actually address the ban.
Contents |
The case entered the Supreme Court's docket in October 2007 and specifically concerns obscene language broadcast on the Fox television network from two Billboard Music Awards shows from 2002 and 2003.[1] In the 2002 show, presenter Cher said "fuck 'em" regarding people who she believed criticized her; in the 2003 show, presenter Nicole Richie stated regarding her television show: “Why do they even call it The Simple Life? Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It’s not so fucking simple.” [2]
In 2004, after two instances of fleeting expletives on the Billboard Music Awards show in 2002 and 2003, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) changed its rules on expletives to prohibit "single uses of vulgar words" under any circumstances, including previous instances where it gave leeway for "fleeting" expletives that networks unknowingly allowed to enter the airwaves.[3] Fox was subsequently fined, and challenged its fine in the courts. The the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in the initial case (06-1760) that the FCC cannot punish broadcast stations for such incidents.[4] The FCC appealed to the Supreme Court,[5], and in the 2009 case, the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit, finding that the new policy was not arbitrary. However, the issue of constitutionality was remanded back to the Second Circuit, which had not considered the issue initially.
Upon remand to hear the initially deferred issue of Constitutionality, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals re-heard the case in January 2010. On July 13, 2010, in a unanimous decision written by Judge Rosemary S. Pooler, the Second Circuit vacated the FCC order and policy on First Amendment grounds, finding that "by prohibiting all 'patently offensive' references to sex, sexual organs, and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what 'patently offensive' means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive. To place any discussion of these vast topics at the broadcaster’s peril has the effect of promoting wide self-censorship of valuable material which should be completely protected under the First Amendment." The Second Circuit added
| “ | We do not suggest that the FCC could not create a constitutional policy. We hold only that the FCC’s current policy fails constitutional scrutiny."[6] | ” |
The FCC requested that the full Second Circuit hear the case en banc, but was denied. The Supreme Court will hear the case again in January 2012.