IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Pacifica Anniversary Week, Part 2 (Brief History of Indecency Enforcement)
(previous | next)

[Note: This is the second in a series of essays about the legacy of the Supreme Court's FCC v. Pacifica Foundation decision, which celebrates its 30th anniversary on July 3rd. Part 1, a general overview of the issue, is here.]

This morning I attended an excellent Freedom Forum conference on "Indecency & Violence in the Media: FCC v. Pacifica 30 Years Later." At the event, Lili Levi of the University of Miami School of Law delivered a terrific address entitled "A Short History of the Indecency & Media Violence Wars." (Incidentally, she is also the author of a highly recommended paper on the topic that is available on SSRN: "The FCC's Regulation of Indecency."

Prof. Levi sketched out what she called the "5 Eras of FCC Indecency Enforcement." Below I will summarize the major developments / trends from each era that she outlined for us today:

Era #1 (1930s to 1960s)
- no serious effort by agency to define "indecency"
- an era of moralistic rhetoric, but little direct action by the FCC...
- but that's because there was a lot of industry self-censorship
- FCC used "regulation by raised eyebrow" (i.e. bully pulpit) to encourage industry to self-censor
- ex: Mae West driven off radio for her "suggestive tone"

Era #2 (1960s to 1973)
- FCC still avoiding defining indecency
- but more fines begin to be levied anyway
- licenses threatened; some are revoked
- but all enforcement was administrative; no judicial review of these decisions
- so constitutional questions remained unclear

Era #3 (1973 to 1987)
- FCC finally adopts a formal definition of indecency in response to George Carlin's monologue
- Supreme Court hands down Pacifica decision in 1978 giving blessing to FCC actions
- enforcement focus almost entirely on Carlin's "seven dirty words" = brighter lines of enforcement
- the "seven dirty words" provided a somewhat better indication of how FCC might rule...
- but ambiguity remained about some of the specific cases and contexts

Era #4 (1987 to 2001)
- FCC reverses course and abandons bright line
- reversal largely due to Howard Stern and radio shock jocks
- radio shock jocks creatively used sexual innuendo and double entendre to avoid "7 dirty words"
- Congress starts pressuring agency for stepped-up enforcement
- agency adopts more "generic" approach to indecency enforcement; abandons strict adherence to "7 dirty words" enforcement
- but not a lot of fines issued during this period
- and most of focus was on radio, not TV
- FCC says "context" of broadcasts mean everything, but doesn't really help nail down what runs afoul of law

Era #5 (2001 to present)
- "an era of stringent indecency enforcement"
- FCC says context counts by uses it more as a sword than shield
- focus shifts more toward television programming
- stepped-up interest in Congress and at FCC in enforcement
- changes in enforcement process make it easier for advocacy groups to flood Enforcement Bureau with complaints
- rise of "automated complaints"
- activist groups (ex: Parents Television Council) effectively use process to raise congressional ire & prompt new activism
- Congress passed law increasing maximum fines 10-fold (from $32,500 to $325,000)
- FCC issues historic fines
- renewed interest in policing "blasphemy"
- documentaries, live programs, and news no longer exempt from FCC attention / fines
- major court cases are filed; still pending
- new interest in expanding regulatory scope to include cable & satellite programming and "excessively violent" programming, even though it is likely unconstitutional for FCC to regulate

And that's where things stand circa 2008.

In the next essay, I'll take a closer look at twisted logic behind the Court's Pacifica decision.

posted by Adam Thierer @ 7:56 PM | Free Speech

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation