Research

Author’s Claim:

Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts are illegal and are not supported by your First Amendment right.

Key Points:

• It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time.
• It is a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours.
• Congress has given the FCC the responsibility for administratively enforcing these laws.
• The FCC may revoke a station license, issue a fine, or give the station a warning.
• Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time.
• The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, the material must meet all three requirements of the Miller Test.
• The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely.
• Indecent programming can not be aired on TV nor on radio between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
• Enforcement actions in this area are based on documented complaints received from the public about obscene, indecent or profane material.

Important Quotes:

“The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.”

“The FCC has defined profanity as “including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.” Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.”

Statistics:

• N/A

Causes/Impacts:

The FCC is trying to protect the youth from hearing obscene lyrics by enforcing rules and giving fines and/or revoking a station's license if rules are broken.

Author’s Claim:

The Media plays a large role in influencing teenage behavior or mindset.

Key Points:

• Images that were considered racy 100 years ago are now easily accessible through magazines, commercials and other forms of media.
• Sexual content in the media is used to sell products and increase ratings.
• Strong correlation exists between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior.

Important Quotes:

“Very few of the sexual acts portrayed in the media address the consequences that can arise from this activity. This negligence provides teens with a distorted view of reality.”

“The result is media that does not take teen's well-being into account, but targets them for the consumption of goods that may or may not be beneficial to them. A teen's focus on obtaining the latest and greatest technology, clothing and snack food might not be related to a genuine desire at all, but rather to the desire to keep up with a false reality created by the media.”

Statistics:

• A landmark study published by the Rand Corporation in 2004 found that watching Television shows with sexual content is associated with earlier teen engagement in sexual activity.
• By the time a person is 18, he will have witnessed approximately 200,000 violent acts, according to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
• The National Eating Disorders Association points out that the average fashion model is thinner than 98 percent of women.

Causes/Impacts:

• Very few of the sexual acts portrayed in the media address the consequences leading to teens gaining a distorted view of reality.
• Teens are exposed to even more violent images in the media in which brutality is rewarded. This results in the desensitization to violence.
• Advertiser view teens as consumers. As a result, youth are bombarded with commercial messages.
• The result is media that does not take teen's well-being into account, but targets them for the consumption of goods that may or may not be beneficial to them. A teen's focus on obtaining the latest and greatest technology, clothing and snack food might not be related to a genuine desire at all, but rather to the desire to keep up with a false reality created by the media.
• Teens are exposed to such unrealistic imagery in the media on a continual basis
• As advertisers work to build brand loyalty for products as varied as shoes and toothpaste, teens are encouraged to place more importance on their appearance than is perhaps healthy for a balanced life.

Author’s Claim:

Music Censorship is the legal censorship of music that is supported by the First Amendment, The FCC and the PMRC.

Key Points:

• Music Censorship is the legal process of the regulation of audio recording or performances within the realm of music
• The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects citizen’s Freedom of Speech but not if they include insulting or fighting words.
• A Public Setting is a location that is regulated by legislation considered to provide for the preservation and protection of the public well being
• A Privacy Setting in which an individual is free to undertake any type of behavior deemed to be legal.

Important Quotes:

“With regard to music censorship, the Freedom of Speech ensures that every citizen of the United States will be entitled to the freedom to express themselves in accordance with applicable legislature enacted in order to preserve the safety and well being of the general public.”

“The Freedom of Speech prohibits ideas, ideology, or creeds to be imposed on any individual without their respective and expressed consent; with regard to music censorship, this entitles individual citizens to partake the purchase, use, and enjoyment of music not considered to be in direct violation of the law”

Statistics:

• N/A

Causes/Impacts:

• The Federal Communications Commission is the governmental branch that is responsible for the regulation of content expressed through media disseminated through the use of publicly-owned airwaves.
• The Parents Music Resource Center allows parents to better understand the presumed meanings and content within the music available within the US commercial marketplace

Author’s Claim:

The Supreme Court ruled that the concept of fair notice is a “fundamental principle of due process” and that Fox and ABC “lacked notice at the time of their broadcasts that the material they were broadcasting could be found actionably indecent under then-existing policies.

Key Points:

• Capitol Hill wants to see: rules kept in place to protect kids from broadcast content.
• In FCC vs. Fox Television Stations, the Supreme Court avoided the central question of whether the FCC’s indecency rules policing passing profanity or fleeting glimpses of nudity on the air violate the First Amendment.
• Consistent with vital First Amendment principles, the FCC will carry out Congress’s directive to protect young TV viewers.
• Lawmakers from both parties cheered the continuation of broadcast regulations.
• Broadcasting is treated differently than other media because TV and radio stations receive their airwaves for free under the condition that they use them in the public interest, convenience and necessity.
• The Supreme Court in the 1978 FCC v. Pacifica Foundation decision — which dealt with a broadcast of the famous George Carlin bit “Filthy Words” — found that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting children from foul language.
• The decision didn’t get at a reconsideration of Pacifica and the George Carlin seven dirty words issues.
• It doesn’t touch on the constitutionality of the FCC rule. And it leaves the FCC free to modify its policy.

Important Quotes:

“The decision leaves in place the FCC’s authority to protect children from indecent programming,” Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the commerce committee, said in a statement. “This is a victory for those of us who believe that we must be doing more, not less, to give the FCC and parents all across America the resources they need to protect their children from indecent programming.”

“FCC “free to modify its current indecency policy in light of its determination of the public interest and applicable legal requirements,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, it also “leaves the courts free to review the current policy or any modified policy.”

Statistics:

• The court ruled 8-0 that the FCC ran afoul of due process by failing to give the networks fair notice that they had broken the rules.
• In 2004 decided that broadcasters could be fined for airing a “fleeting expletive”.
• Allows the airing of indecent speech from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., when children are a negligible part of the audience.
• While the commission did not propose a fine for Fox, it hit ABC with a proposed fine of $1.4 million, which was $27,500 for each station that aired the program. That was the maximum fine at the time, but Congress later raised fines for indecency violations to $325,000 per incident per station.

Causes/Impacts:

• The FCC ran afoul of due process by failing to give the networks fair notice that they had broken the rules, letting them off the hook from paying steep fines.
• A series of similar slip ups by famous stars that prompted the commission to rewrite the rules, eventually deciding that any number of four-letter words and images can garner a fine.
• The other case came against ABC after a 2003 airing of an “NYPD Blue” rerun entitled “Nude Awakening,” in which the FCC decided that a flash of nudity should be treated the same way as language.
• One of the cases arose from a Fox broadcast of the 2002 Billboard Music Awards when Cher used the F-word and another for a broadcast of the 2003 Billboard Music Awards when Nicole Richie used both the F-word and the S-word.

Author’s Claim:

The Second Circuit Courts found the FCC's liability order was "arbitrary and capricious" under the governing Administrative Procedure Act because the FCC had completely reversed its position on fleeting expletives without giving a proper justification. However, The Supreme Court held that the FCC's order was neither "arbitrary" nor "capricious."

Key Points:

• In 2002 and 2003, Fox Television Stations broadcast the Billboard Music Awards, an annual program honoring top-selling musicians. During the broadcasts, one musician used an explicative in his acceptance speech, and a presenter used two expletives.
• The FCC argued that previous decisions referring to "fleeting" expletives were merely staff letters and dicta and did not accurately represent its position on the matter.
• Fox appealed the FCC sanctions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
• The Supreme Court held that the FCC's order was neither "arbitrary" nor "capricious".
• Majority SC vote reasoned that the FCC need not prove that its change in policy is "better" than its prior stance. Rather, the FCC need merely prove that its new policy is "permissible" and that there are good reasons for it, as in this case.
• A concurring vote argued that when the FCC changes policy, such that it reverses its own precedent, it should explain why.
• A dissenting vote argued that the FCC need explain why it changed its policy and disagreed that the word "indecent" allowed the FCC to punish the broadcast of "any" expletive that has a "sexual or excretory origin".
• Another dissenting vote noted that while the First Amendment issues surrounding the case were not addressed, they "cast a shadow", and the Court should be mindful that words "unpalatable to some may be commonplace for others".
• The final group of dissenting groups argued that, the FCC failed to adequately explain why it changed its policy and thus its order with respect to the Fox Television Stations was "arbitrary" and "capricious".

Important Quotes:

“The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), although it had previously taken the position that such fleeting and isolated expletives did not violate its indecency regime, issued notices of liability to Fox for broadcasting the profane language.”

“Majority SC vote reasoned that the FCC need not prove that its change in policy is 'better' than its prior stance. Rather, the FCC need merely prove that its new policy is 'permissible' and that there are good reasons for it, as in this case.”

Statistics:

• The FCC had previously taken the position that such fleeting and isolated expletives did not violate its indecency regime, However, The FCC issued notices of liability to Fox for broadcasting the profane language.
• Decision: 5 votes for FCC, 4 vote(s) against
• Legal provision: Administrative Procedure Act

Causes/Impacts:

• The Second Circuit held that the FCC's liability order was "arbitrary and capricious" under the governing Administrative Procedure Act because the FCC had completely reversed its position on fleeting expletives without giving a proper justification

Author’s Claim:

Instead of punishing every little thing on television, there should be more publicity on parental controls; especially now that all television sets are required to be installed with them.

Key Points:

• Parents with young children are probably grateful that the Federal Communications Commission has been enforcing at least some limits on "indecency" during the hours (6 a.m. to 10 p.m.) that kids are most likely to be watching the broadcast networks.
• Unlike cable TV and the Internet, whose content is beyond government reach, broadcast TV uses public airwaves and has long been subject to FCC restriction.
• Early on, the FCC acted only in extreme cases. Then, during the George W. Bush Administration, the agency adopted a zero-tolerance policy, insisting that even a "fleeting expletive" should trigger enforcement.
• The FCC's standard grew even more arbitrary when it allowed ABC to show the movie Saving Private Ryan with its profanities intact, but told PBS it couldn't show a documentary on the blues without bleeping the words.

Important Quotes:

“Nearly 90% of homes get cable or satellite TV, and viewers make no meaningful distinctions between regulated over-the-air channels and unregulated cable channels a click away on the remote. Not to mention all the other content flooding in through computers and smart phones.”

“Since 2000, every TV set 13 inches or larger has included a V-chip to let parents block unwanted shows, and cable boxes also offer parental controls.”

Statistics:

• Nearly 90% of homes get cable or satellite TV.
• Since 2000, every TV set 13 inches or larger has included a V-chip to let parents block unwanted shows, and cable boxes also offer parental controls.

Causes/Impacts:

• The Federal Communications Commission has been enforcing at least some limits on "indecency" during the hours (6 a.m. to 10 p.m.) that kids are most likely to be watching the broadcast networks.
• When CBS broadcast a glimpse of singer Janet Jackson's bare breast during the Super Bowl halftime show in 2004, so many people complained that the network began using time-delay technology to edit out offensive images.

Author’s Claim:

Freedom of Speech should be just that. The government does not have the authority to tell someone what they can and cannot say, especially since it is their constitutional right.

Key Points:

• Pressure on the FCC wrought by ambitious politicians of both parties have forced Stern off of "free" radio and onto a subscription service, where he can now speak "freely."

Important Quotes:

“What is so free about 'Freedom of Speech' on satellite radio if Sirius and XM had to pay $200 million for this supposed 'right'?”

“Unfortunately, under the pressures of the FCC, it seems our right to 'free speech' is turning into a right to 'free beer'.”

Statistics:

• N/A

Causes/Impacts:

• In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee on February 11, 2004, FCC Commissioners Kevin Martin (R) and Michael Copps (D) both expressed support for extending government content regulations to cable and satellite.

Author’s Claim:

Set up a screening systems in digital video recorders that would allow a consumer individual control of content in a free market.

Key Points:

• The thrust of the pending legislation is to further centralize who decides "good" from "bad" content, and makes government—not consumers—the ultimate arbiter of programming content.
• Deciding whether Stern's broadcast is indecent shouldn't be a political debate, but it is.
• Congress should weigh costs and benefits before it passes any law.
• Particularly disturbing are proposals to expand FCC censorship powers beyond traditional broadcast networks into the arena of cable and satellite content.
• It's this rabid desire of regulators to ignore the First Amendment that Americans should regard as truly offensive - not controversial programming that can be readily turned off.

Important Quotes:

“When it comes to censoring broadcast 'indecency', government regulation is a rudimentary filter. Laws preventing certain speech are black type on white paper, but the context in which words appear are utterly gray. Language that is crude in one context is clinical in another. Politicians are only good at making black-and-white decisions. When it comes to 'obscenity' or 'indecency', even the U.S. Supreme Court avoids specific definition and instead proclaims, 'I know it when I see it'."

“As we have seen in the response to recent indecency scandals, customers are perfectly able to be their own regulators by registering their displeasure with programmers and advertisers. Parents have a powerful weapon of their own; it's called the off button. Truly offensive content, as opposed to occasional crudeness or political incorrectness, will be met with vanishing audiences and no advertisers.”

Statistics:

• N/A

Causes/Impacts:

• More than just increasing the fines on broadcast licensees, the pending bills propose to extend liability to announcers and entertainers personally.
• The House bill pulls the plug on a licensee after three indecency violations
• The FCC is moving toward a property-based spectrum allocation process—as proposed in its 2002 Spectrum Policy Task Force report—and this should be applied to the broadcast world.
• In the future, perhaps technologies will be built into digital video recorders that would allow a consumer to set up a screening system. Enabling individual control of content in a free market is welcomed because no law or set of laws can increase morality.

Author’s Claim:

The government should look into more economically fueled solutions as opposed to being bullied by interest groups and conservative individuals. The first being a Condorcet Jury where, much like in court, a group of impartial people will vote on whether something should be labeled indecent and whether it should be fined. The other being a direct link to advertisers. This way any complaints can go straight to them and depending on the advertisers stance, they will be able to decide whether to keep supporting the show/movie.

Key Points:

• While the FCC standards, which are guided by the language from the Pacifica decision, necessitate even-handedness and a high degree of attention to community standards of decency, in practice they are more likely to be guided by the pressure of interest groups and media coverage.
• Although Holohan and other like scholars present compelling arguments for no regulation at all,this is not the direction that courts nor legislators are likely to take.

Important Quotes:

“From a single decision-maker model to majority rule with a five-decision maker model, [The Condorcet Jury Theorem shows] how the probability that the correct decision will be reached increases as the number of decision makers increases. However, it is necessary to note that a unanimity rule does not work in a situation with a lot of decision makers.”

“By providing this information to viewers, viewers could then contact advertisers directly and to voice their concerns about the allegedly indecent programming that the sponsor is funding. In response, advertisers could make a business judgment as to whether the viewer’s complaint has merit and either continue sponsoring the product and possibly lose some share of the market or discontinue sponsorship as a result of the information that the viewer provided.”

Statistics:

• In a study used by the Parents Television Council (“PTC”) in their lobbying practices, researchers found that “20 percent of 2 to 7 year olds, 46 percent of 8 to 12 year olds, and 56 percent of 13 to 17 year olds have televisions in their bedrooms.”

Causes/Impacts:

• In order for FCC regulation to rid itself of the problems that were described in Section II, it is necessary to examine the value of two approaches based on economic theory rather than interest group-fueled enforcement.
• The first proposed revision used the Condorcet Jury Theorem to create a system that seeks to add some sort of impartiality to FCC enforcement.
• Current indecency regulation is based on the public trustee doctrine.
• Brown and Candeub suggest that regulation focus on advertisers for the precise reason that they are the ones funding the media markets that regulation aims to rid of indecency
• The second proposed revision was based on traditional principles of an efficient capital market. It necessitated that the FCC provide viewers with information on the advertisers that sponsor programming on television.

Author’s Claim:

The United States should relax their policies on censorship by not broadcasting harmful programs during the day, or on channels with consistent adolescent viewers; focusing more on the violence aspect than the sex and cursing.

Key Points:

• Since television became official in the 1930s, there have always been geographical disparities regarding to what degree different countries view television content as objectionable based on moral, religious or political criteria.
• In general, the United Kingdom fines programs and stations for going over television program limits or blatantly lying on television, but does not often penalize stations for showing morally, politically or religiously indecent content.

Important Quotes:

“Compared to the United Kingdom, whose regulations allow for greater reign of freedom of speech and expression, the United States has much harsher regulations about censorship and blocking harmful content from the airwaves.”

“During certain hours of the day, especially after 9pm, parents and their children should be highly advised that there may be inappropriate content in the television material.”

Statistics:

• In December of 2004, the FCC fined 111 television stations that broadcasted the CBS show “Without a Trace” for a record $3.6 million, which suggested that teenagers were involved in a sexual orgy.
• The United States and the United Kingdom both deal with complaints from television viewers on a daily basis; however, the viewers in the United Kingdom complain there is not enough censorship, while the viewers in the United States feel there is too much censorship.

Causes/Impacts:

• Any other television shows have been fined for indecency, which has led to the detriment of station programming because stations are worried about being charged. This string of massive fines given to inappropriate airings has led broadcasters to self-censor their programs using five-second delays; especially on entertainment, sport and sexually explicit television shows
• According to the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, multiple sections were established to set proper standards for television broadcasting. Two codes related to the censorship of inappropriate material are: to prevent harm to children under age 18, and to avert offensive or harmful material from being broadcast.
• The BBC and other public broadcasting stations in the United Kingdom rely on parent support and program warnings to prevent children from exposure to indecent, profane or obscene content, not on censorship rules and expensive fines.

“‘Freedom Of Speech Is the Political Right to Communicate One's Opinions and Idea... | Hacker News.” "Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and idea... | Hacker News. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

“Freedom Of Speech.” WAG. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2015. “Who's Afraid Of the F-Bomb?”Mother Jones. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

“Parents Television Council.”- SourceWatch. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

“CBS Dealt Record Fine Over Janet.” CBSNews. CBS Interactive, n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

“The Price For On-Air Indecency Goes Up.”Washington Post. The Washington Post, Aug. 2006. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

“Teens Fact Sheet.” Pew Research Centers Internet American Life Project RSS. N.p., 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

Calvert, Clay. “Indecency, Politics And the FCC: A New Round in the Culture Wars?”The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post.com, n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

“The Good Things About Television.” The Good Things About Television. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

"Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts." FCC.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2014.

Wile, Elise. "Does the Media Negatively Affect Teenagers?" Everyday Life. Demand Media, n.d. Web. 17 Sept. 2014.

"Sex on TV: Content and Context." SEX ON TV: Content and Context (n.d.): n. pag. Feb. 2003. Web. 19 Sept. 2014.

"Does Watching Sex on Television Influence Teens’ Sexual Activity?" Does Watching Sex on Television Influence Teens’ Sexual Activity? RAND Health, 2004. Web. 19 Sept. 2014.

Kirchheimer, Sid. "Does Rap Music Put Teens at Risk?" WebMD. WebMD, n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2014.

""The Public and Broadcasting" - July 2008." Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.

"August 13, 1912 Act to Regulate Radio Communication." August 13, 1912 Act to Regulate Radio Communication. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.

"Radio Act of 1927 Law & Legal Definition." Radio Act of 1927 Law & Legal Definition. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.

"What Is the Communications Act of 1934?" Roosevelt Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.

"FCC - Telecommunications Act of 1996." FCC - Telecommunications Act of 1996. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.

"Fairness Doctrine." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.

"State Shield Laws." State Shield Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.

"Recording Phone Calls and Conversations." Recording Phone Calls and Conversations. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.

"Miller Test." Princeton University. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.

""The Public and Broadcasting" - July 2008." The Public and Broadcasting. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.

"Dying to Be Barbie | Eating Disorders in Pursuit of the Impossible."Rehabs.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2014.

"All Time Worldwide Box Office Grosses." All Time Worldwide Box Office Grosses. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2014.

Edwards, Autumn. "Will We Ever Demand Censorship?" The Daily Runner. N.p., 7 May 2014. Web. 04 Dec. 2014.

"Compare the Democratic and Republican Platforms." Forward Boldly. N.p., 24 Sept. 2012. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.