Controversy Analysis

In general, freedom of speech and due process are considered two of American integral values, as protected by the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and the United States Constitution. This freedom however, has caused many controversies over time and constant power struggles between an empowered and a limited government. Some say, the FCC has the authority, under the rule of Congress, to punish broadcasters for indecency. On the other hand, others say, society’s Ethical Relativism does not give the FCC sufficient authority to punish broadcasters for indecency. Although the FCC does legally have the authority to punish broadcasts for indecency under a Supreme Court majority ruling, due to the vague regulations given by the FCC and the constant changing of them, each case deserves to be reviewed separately; regarding constitutional and ethical rights.

Some say the FCC has the authority to punish broadcasters for indecency under the precedent rulings of the Supreme Court. A precedent is “a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment” (The Free Dictionary). In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, the Supreme Court gave the FCC the authority, “to enforce the indecency standard between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., local time. - when children are more likely to be in the audience” (FCC). As a consequence, the Commission does not take action on indecent material aired between 10 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. In this way, constitutionally-protected free speech rights of adults are balanced with the need to protect children from harmful content. While the case and ruling took place over 30 years ago, it does provide clear and concrete regulations. Opponents of the FCC argues, however, that the FCC does the exact opposite.

Other’s say that the vagueness of the FCC’s regulations and it’s inconsistent stances have weakened their credibility and authority. Therefore, not giving the FCC sufficient authority to punish broadcasters for indecency. The Communications Act of 1934 says that, “nothing in its language gives the FCC "the power of censorship". Then immediately afterwards it states, “No person...shall utter any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication." In FCC v. FOX Television Stations, under the precedent of the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation case, the FCC fined FOX for broadcasting profane language during a live awards show, although they previously said fleeting and isolated expletives did not violate its indecency rule. The FCC argued that previous decisions referring to "fleeting" expletives were merely staff letters that did not represent its position on the matter. One example of instability frequently cited by television networks is 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. In consequence, broadcasters have been left guessing by the FCC's contextual approach to enforcement. The National Association of Broadcasters says, “the FCC's indecency policy is void for vagueness…[it] chills protected speech and that the commission's authority to regulate content is limited.” While these are only a few examples of vague FCC rulings, it does reveal that there are inconsistencies within the commission.

Under Supreme Court majority ruling, the FCC legally has the authority to punish broadcasts for indecency. However, due to the vague regulations given by the FCC and the constant changing of them, each case deserves to be reviewed separately; regarding constitutional rights. The purpose of the government is to protect citizens and government regulated airwaves, assist with this. The FCC’s ability to punish broadcasts for whatever they deem indecent is a form of governmental authority abuse. By deeming all FCC policies as constitutional, they are giving the government full say on what is and what is not appropriate. This not only censors citizens but, it also infringes on their Freedom of Speech. Based on the amount of complaints, it seems that it is parents who have the greatest problem with indecency. However, they are leaving the job of “parenting” to the FCC itself.