Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
TV or not TV
Scott D. Pierce
Scott D. Pierce writes about television for the Salt Lake Tribune. Vice president of the Television Critics Associationn, he's covered TV in Utah since 1990.

» E-mail

» Subscribe (RSS)




Supporters and opponents of health care reform rally in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, March 27, 2012, as the court continued arguments on the health care law signed by President Barack Obama. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Supreme Court restores some sanity to crazy FCC obscenity rulings

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning threw sanctions against broadcasters who violated the FCC's policy regulating curse words and nudity on broadcast television.

And the republic is still strong. The sky has not fallen.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

In this case, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous, common-sense decision that only the rabid, ridiculous "parents" groups will have any problem with.

The decision is actually extremely narrow. The justices rules 8-0 (with Justice Sonia Sotomayor abstaining) that fleeting nudity on "NYPD Blue" and the unexpected use of expletives on an awards show didn't rise to the level of the sanctions imposed on broadcasters by the Federal Communications Commission.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the ruling that the FCC "failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent."

The incidents in question involved a flash of an actress' behind in a 2002 episode of "NYPD Blue" and expletives uttered live on the Billboard Music Awards in 2002 and 2003.

The FCC should never have fined the broadcasters in the first place. Not just because the Supreme Court says so, but because it was nonsensical when it happened.

The FCC succumbed to pressure in the form of an orchestrated email campaign that blew the incidents wildly out of proportion.

The Supreme Court simply brought it back to earth and back to some degree of sanity.

The justices did not rule on the constitutionality of the FCC's regulations on indecency, but said the FCC is free to revise them.

That certainly seems like a suggestion. And, given that it came from the Supreme Court, it seems like a good idea.

Certainly, the orchestrated email campaigns will begin anew. Perhaps this time the FCC will be smart enough to ignore them.



Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
 
Jobs
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.