Can you say that on TV? The Supreme Court debates

Jan 10, 2012 By MARK SHERMAN , Associated Press
In this Dec. 9, 2002, file photo, Cher accepts a lifetime achievement award at the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas during the Billboard Music Awards show. During the show Cher used the F-word. The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012, in a First Amendment case that pits the Obama administration against the nation’s television networks. The Supreme Court is considering whether government regulators may still police the airwaves for curse words and other coarse content at a time when so many Americans have unregulated cable television, and the Internet is awash in easily accessible adult material. (AP Photo/Joe Cavaretta, file)

(AP) -- In colorful give and take, the Supreme Court debated whether policing curse words and nudity on broadcast television makes sense in the cable era, one justice suggesting the policy is fast becoming moot as broadcast TV heads the way of "vinyl records and 8-track tapes."

The case involves programing that is available to all viewers free over the air - even though many now receive it through paid cable connections - during hours when children are likely to be watching.

Some justices said they were troubled by inconsistent standards that allowed certain words and displays in some contexts but not in others.

One example frequently cited by the networks was the Federal Communications Commission's decision not to punish ABC for airing "Saving Private Ryan," with its strong language, while objecting to the same words when uttered by celebrities on live awards shows.

Justice Elena Kagan said the FCC policy was, "Nobody can use dirty words or nudity except Steven Spielberg," director of the World War II movie. Other justices seemed more open to maintaining the current rules because they allow parents to put their children in front of the television without having to worry they will be bombarded by vulgarity.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the only member of the court with young children, hammered away at that point. Robert wondered why broadcasters would oppose FCC regulation, especially when cable and can offer hundreds of channels with few restrictions.

"All we are asking for, what the government is asking for, is a few channels where ... they are not going to hear the S-word, the F-word, they are not going to see nudity."

Justice Antonin Scalia placed himself on the side of the government. "These are public airwaves. The government is entitled to insist upon a certain modicum of decency. I'm not sure it even has to relate to juveniles, to tell you the truth."

But at least one justice, Samuel Alito, talked about how rapidly technological change has effectively consigned vinyl records and 8-tracks to the scrap heap, suggesting that in a rapidly changing universe, time will take care of the dispute. Already nearly nine of 10 households subscribe to cable or satellite television and viewers can switch among broadcast and other channels with a button on their remote controls.

"I'm sure your clients will continue to make billions of dollars on their programs which are transmitted by cable and by satellite and by Internet. But to the extent they are making money from people who are using rabbit ears, that is disappearing," Alito said.

The First Amendment case involves programing received by antennas on top of a television set, a house or building. Much of that programing now also is available through cable and satellite connections, but only the over-the-air transmissions are at issue.

The case pits the Obama administration against the nation's television networks. The material at issue includes the isolated use of expletives as well as fines against broadcasters who showed a woman's nude buttocks on a 2003 episode of ABC's "NYPD Blue."

The broadcasters want the court to overturn a 1978 decision that upheld the FCC's authority to regulate radio and television content, at least during the hours when children are likely to be watching or listening. That includes the prime-time hours before 10 p.m.

At the very least, the networks say the FCC's current policy is too hard to figure out and penalizes the use of particular words in some instances but not in others.

The administration said that even with the explosion of entertainment options, broadcast programing remains dominant. It also needs to be kept as a dependable "safe haven" of milder programing, the administration said.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. said that if the court were to overrule its 33-year-old decision, "the risk of a race to the bottom is real."

But Carter Phillips, representing the networks in connection with the awards shows, said that little would change because broadcasters would remain sensitive to advertisers and viewers who don't want the airwaves filled with dirty words and nudity.

Phillips and former Solicitor General Seth Waxman, arguing on behalf of ABC, noted that broadcasters could face fines from thousands of pending complaints, including some relating to the broadcast of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. The opening ceremonies "included a statue very much like some of the statues that are here in this courtroom, that had bare breasts and buttocks," Waxman said.

As some justices turned their gaze toward the sculpted marble panels at the top of the courtroom, Waxman pointed to the one above the bench and said, "Right over here, Justice Scalia."

No one mentioned that those sculptures don't appear on television, because the high court does not allow cameras.

The FCC policy under attack flowed from the court's 1978 Pacifica decision, which upheld the FCC's reprimand of a New York radio station for its mid-afternoon airing of a George Carlin monologue containing a 12-minute string of expletives.

For many years, the FCC did not take action against broadcasters for one-time uses of curse words. But, following several awards shows with cursing celebrities in 2002 and 2003, the FCC toughened its policy. It concluded that a one-free-expletive rule did not make sense as a way of keeping the airwaves free of indecency when children are likely to be watching television.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York declared the FCC policy unconstitutionally vague.

The Billboard Music Awards aired on Fox in both 2002 and 2003. Cher used the F-word the first year, and reality TV personality Nicole Richie uttered the F-word and S-word a year later. The FCC did not issue a fine in either case but said the broadcasts violated its policy.

The "NYPD Blue" episode led to fines only for stations in the Central and Mountain time zones, where the show aired at 9 p.m., a more child-friendly hour than the show's 10 p.m. time slot in the East.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor is not taking part in the case because she served on the appeals court during its consideration of some of the issues involved.

A decision is expected by late June.

The case is FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 10-1293.

Explore further: Verizon launches rewards program with tracking

not rated yet
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Government appeals ruling on FCC indecency rule

Aug 26, 2010

(AP) -- Federal regulators are appealing a recent court decision that struck down a 2004 government policy that says broadcasters can be fined for allowing even a single curse word on live television.

High court to rule on TV indecency, GPS tracking

Jun 28, 2011

(AP) -- The Supreme Court has added a couple of high-profile constitutional challenges to its lineup of cases for next term: One looking at governmental regulation of television content and the other dealing with the authority ...

FCC move to close program access loophole upheld

Jun 10, 2011

(AP) -- A federal court is upholding a recent decision by government regulators to close a loophole that had allowed cable TV operators to withhold sporting events and other popular programming from satellite TV providers ...

Supreme Court rejects appeal of 'must-carry' rule

May 17, 2010

(AP) -- The Supreme Court has declined to take up a challenge from cable television operators to the 18-year-old requirement that they carry local broadcast stations on their systems.

TV companies have a year to pipe down loud ads

Dec 15, 2011

(AP) -- Shush, already. That's the message the Federal Communications Commission is sending with new rules that force broadcast, cable and satellite companies to turn down the volume on blaring TV commercials.

Recommended for you

Verizon launches rewards program with tracking

Jul 21, 2014

Verizon Wireless is launching a nationwide loyalty program this week for its 100-million-plus subscribers. There's a twist, though: To earn points for every dollar spent, subscribers must consent to have their movements tracked ...

Verizon boosts FiOS uploads to match downloads

Jul 21, 2014

Verizon is boosting the upload speeds of nearly all its FiOS connections to match the download speeds, vastly shortening the time it takes for subscribers to send videos and back up their files online.

The goTenna device pitch is No Service, No Problem

Jul 18, 2014

In the new age of Internet-based crowdfunding with special price offers, where startup teams try to push their product closer and closer to the gate of entry, goTenna's campaign offers a most attractive pitch. ...

Maths can make the internet 5-10 times faster

Jul 17, 2014

Mathematical equations can make Internet communication via computer, mobile phone or satellite many times faster and more secure than today. Results with software developed by researchers from Aalborg University ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Smarrelli
4.7 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2012
Isn't this censorship behaviour exactly the sort of thing perpetuating the power of these words? Similarly with racism - slightly off topic, but I believe another example of giving certain words unnecessary amounts of power. It's the people who are trying to prevent their use that are making this into a bigger deal that it otherwise would be.
Deonsdreaming
5 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2012
In Europe the TV is full of breast curse words and more. Yet I don't children acting any different. In fact I would say the act better because the mystery of the F-word and breast is gone. So what they saw breast, do you think they don't know what those are? Mom and dad walk around the house in the nude, yet their children don't seemed to be phased by it. The beaches are full of nude men and women and yes children and teens! Yet they don't have the same sex crime rates as Americans who pretend to be holier than thou. I can turn on the radio (over the air) and hear a woman talk about 3sums, getting her ass licked, sucking, and on and on. Yet there is not a problem letting the kids listen to that.... WTF?
Deathclock
3 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2012
Thank the the religious morality police who think that certain combinations of sound frequencies and the image of the human body are far worse than wanton violence.

A movie can have a man shot in the head at point blank with his brains splattering out the back of his skull and be rated PG-13 but if so much as half a nipple is showing for 2 seconds it has to be rated R.
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2012
WTF is nothing, just try to say AWT before physicists...