After Supreme Court ruling, FCC must give clear indecency standards

A Supreme Court ruling on FCC indecency rules for broadcast TV calls for less vague standards but seems to back the public interest in safeguarding children from vulgarities and nudity on public airwaves. Now the FCC must provide clarity for such rules.

Alex Brandon/AP Photo
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the FCC indecency standards are too vague for broadcasters to follow. The ruling nonetheless seemed to uphold the Federal Communications Commission's ability to regulate indecency in broadcast TV and radio.

In a ruling Thursday, the US Supreme Court took the wise step of affirming the federal government’s ability to regulate indecency in the public airwaves. But to protect free speech, the justices also insisted that TV broadcasters deserve “fair notice” on what is considered indecent.

The 8-to-0 decision overturns hefty fines imposed on Fox and ABC for their airing of “fleeting expletives” and momentary nudity during broadcasts a decade ago. And it pushes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to now come up with new – and less vague – standards.

Those new rules need to satisfy a public interest in safeguarding children in the home while also meeting a constitutional requirement to provide enough clarity so that broadcasters don’t censor themselves simply out of fear.

This is a fine line to walk. Broadcast TV (and radio) are regulated because the airwaves are a scarce resource, limited by the amount of frequencies. And the high court has allowed FCC limits on free speech because parents still need help – despite the V-chip and other technology – in protecting children from the emotional shock of vulgarities on broadcast TV during normal viewing hours.

Commercial media have plenty of other, nonregulated outlets, such as cable and the Internet, if they insist on airing edgy material. TV broadcasting is still uniquely accessible to children and still a popular medium in the home. Swearwords are generally offensive because many of them only serve as a reminder of base bodily functions or depraved activities – or those kind of things best left to parents to decide on what a child can bear.

For those reasons, the court likely did not want to decide this case on First Amendment grounds. And it stated there is no need for the FCC to “provide detailed justifications for every change or to show that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one.”

Courts have found little social value in obscenities, giving them less free-speech protection, much as libel or verbal threats are not often protected by the Constitution.

The courts have cited a special need for homes to be a sanctuary for young children. And there will be little danger of society lacking a free flow of ideas and opinions if government insists on decency for the images and language where it has clear jurisdiction – on the public airwaves.

Yet challenges remain in being fair to broadcasters. The FCC has its work cut out for it. Defining indecency is as troublesome as knowing how to regulate it with fairness.

No doubt courts will revisit any new FCC rules. But for now the court has struck the right balance between vice on TV and the vice of legal vagueness.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.