Term: 2011
Docket: 10-1293
Federal Communications Commission, Et Al., Petitioners v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., Et Al.
- Pro
10-1293 FCC V. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS DECISION BELOW: 613 F.3d 317 GRANTED LIMITED TO FOLLOWING QUESTION: "WHETHER THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS CURRENT INDECENCY-ENFORCEMENT REGIME VIOLATES THE FIRST OR FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION." JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR TOOK NO PART. CERT. GRANTED 6/27/2011 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether the court of appeals erred in invalidating a finding by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that a broadcast including expletives was indecent within the meaning of statutory and regulatory prohibitions on indecent broadcasts, on the ground that the FCC's context-based approach to determining indecency is unconstitutionally vague in its entirety. 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in invalidating a finding by the FCC that a broadcast including nudity was indecent within the meaning of statutory and regulatory prohibitions on indecent broadcasts, on the ground that the FCC's context-based approach to determining indecency is unconstitutionally vague in its entirety. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-1760-ag, 06-2750-ag, 06-5358-ag
The U.S. Supreme Court case Federal Communications Commission (FCC) v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 2011 revolved around the FCC's policy of fining broadcasters for airing "fleeting expletives" or brief instances of nudity during daytime television hours. The FCC had previously not enforced such strict regulations but changed its policy in 2004 after several high-profile incidents on live television broadcasts. Fox Television Stations and other broadcasters challenged this change, arguing that it was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because they were not given fair notice prior to enforcement action being taken against them by the FCC for violating these new rules. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court sided with Fox Television Stations, ruling that while government agencies have discretion to change their policies without judicial second-guessing under Chevron deference principle, they must provide regulated parties fair warning before punishing them for conduct which may be deemed illegal or inappropriate based on those changes.
In the dissenting opinion for the case of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the FCC's indecency policy was unconstitutionally vague and inconsistent. She pointed out that while fleeting expletives were penalized, other potentially offensive content such as graphic violence or sexual innuendo often went unpunished. This inconsistency in enforcement made it difficult for broadcasters to predict what would be considered a violation of FCC rules. Furthermore, she noted that technological advances had rendered obsolete many concerns about protecting children from inappropriate content on broadcast television since parents now have tools like V-chips to block certain programming. In her view, this invalidated one of the main justifications for strict regulation of broadcast media compared to cable TV or internet-based services which are not subject to similar restrictions.
