Second Circuit Trashes FCC Indecency Policy
This entry was posted on 6/4/2007 3:51 PM and is filed under Indecency,Harry Cole.
By Harry Cole
703-812-0483
email
In a long-awaited decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has finally dropped the hammer on the Commission’s indecency policy. In an opinion issued on June 4, 2007, a three-judge panel (with one dissent) has held that the "fleeting expletive" policy invoked by the Commission in 2004 and then again in the 2006 "Omnibus" indecency decision is arbitrary and capricious. In the Court’s view, the FCC’s asserted justifications for the "fleeting expletive" policy were less than persuasive.
The "fleeting expletive" policy
– as first announced in 2004 and then reaffirmed in 2006 – provided that any broadcast of the words "fuck" or "shit", in almost any context, would be deemed indecent. Historically, the Commission had been far more restrained, acknowledging that the occasional slip-up resulting in the broadcast of an isolated expletive should not warrant censure. But in the wake of the public uproar over the Janet Jackson/Super Bowl incident, the Commission suddenly reversed course and took an exceedingly hard line on indecency generally, and the use of those two words in particular.
The Court’s decision is at first blush relatively narrow, finding only that the "fleeting expletive" policy is arbitrary and capricious and thus inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. But in a surprising six-page portion of the opinion, the Court offered its very strong suggestion that the policy would not survive First Amendment analysis. (As a matter of practice, courts generally decline to delve into weighty constitutional issues if a case can be resolved on less radical grounds.)
The majority also indicates that the FCC’s "profanity" policy – which first popped up in 2004 – essentially overlaps the indecency policy – which indicates that the profanity policy cannot survive, either.
The case is remanded to the Commission for further action consistent with the Court’s decision – but the Court seems clearly to signal that if the Commission tries to shore up its policies on remand (as opposed to running up the white flag and abandoning them), the Court anticipates yet another appeal, the result of which would not be favorable to the Commission.
We are, of course, still awaiting further developments in the Janet Jackson case out of the Third Circuit, but oral argument there is not likely to happen for at least another couple of months.
