Supreme Court Considers the FCCs Indecency Policy
Its one of the most important cases of the term. Today, the Supreme Court of the
We represent 18 members of Congress in the case and filed an amicus brief with the high court urging the Justices to overturn a lower court decision and uphold the FCCs actions of issuing fines after expletives were uttered during a nationally-broadcast awards show.
I attended the oral arguments today before the high court. And, like most of these cases, the discussion was spirited. The arguments went well for the government attorneys who argued on behalf of the FCC. They underscored what we argued in our friend-of-the-court brief: that the FCCs policy is constitutional and its actions appropriate. The Supreme Court has released a transcript of the oral arguments which you can read here.
As we stated in our amicus brief: Rather than forcing the FCC to ignore harm to children simply because offensive material is uttered in isolation, this policy allows the FCC to weigh all the relevant contextual factors before determining whether material is indecent. As previous FCC decisions demonstrate, consideration of the entire context of broadcast material may result in a determination that expletives are not actionably indecent even when repeated throughout a program. The FCC should be free to apply this context-based approach in a consistent manner, regardless of how many times offensive material is broadcast in a single program.
You can read our amicus brief here.
The ACLJ represents itself and 18 members of the U.S. House of Representatives: Charles Pickering, Roscoe Bartlett, Kevin Brady, Paul Broun, Danny Davis, John Doolittle, Mary Fallin, Trent Franks, Wally Herger, Jim Jordan, Doug Lamborn, Kenny Marchant, Jeff Miller, Marilyn Musgrave, Joe Pitts, Mark Souder, Tim Walber and Dave Weldon currently serve in the 110th Congress.
The fact is that without question, the FCC acted appropriately in punishing the broadcasters who aired the expletives and clearly acted in the best interest of the viewing public especially children. Theres a tremendous responsibility afforded to those who use the public airwaves and the FCCs indecency policy is not only necessary but appropriate. The FCCs indecency policy affords children greater protection from the harm occasioned by exposure to indecent material without infringing the constitutional rights of adults.
I remain hopeful that the high court will overturn the lower court decision and restore to the FCC its proper role and authority. A decision in this case will come before the end of the term.