FCC Indecency Standards Unconstitutional

[jillian]

you know, i look at all the trash that passes for discussion on constitutional issues on this board... and it is fascinating that when a really truly important constitutional issue arises, there's dead silence.

the second circuit court of appeals came down with a decision yesterday afternoon which, if it is affirmed by the high court (or not taken for review by the court, which i think is pretty unlikely), could have wide-ranging affect on future first amendment issues.

Score a major victory for Hollywood in the indecency wars. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York today tossed a $1.4 million FCC fine on ABC and selected affiliates for airing a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue that showed actress Charlotte Ross’ rear end.

Today’s decision comes on the heels of a July three-judge panel from the Second Circuit in the so-called “fleeting expletives” case that the FCC's enforcement of its indecency rules is “unconstitutionally vague and chilling.”

The court, applying its July ruling dealing with unbleeped swear words uttered by Cher and Nicole Richie on Fox awards shows, threw out the fine on the same grounds.

“Although this case involved scripted nudity, the case turns on an application of the same content-based indecency test that [the Fox case] found 'impermissibly vague,’" the court held.

As you might imagine, the Parents Television Council watchdog group is not pleased.

“This ruling is as devoid of common sense as it was predictable,” the PTC says in a statement. “The Second Circuit’s three-judge panel has stated that it doesn’t like the concept of broadcast decency. The court is clearly on a quest to do everything in its power to impede the law – even if the judges’ rationale today conflicts with their prior reasoning for overturning FCC sanctions. It is unfortunate that the industry’s blatant forum-shopping effort is being rewarded with such outlandish decisions.

On the other side, a group called TV Watch, which opposes government control of TV programming, issues its own statement:

“Today’s decision by the court is further evidence that the highest authority on family television viewing is parents and not the government. Eighty-seven percent of parents agree according to our research. Parents already have tools such as the V-Chip and content ratings to help them make decisions based on their own taste, values and style. We will continue to educate parents about such resources.”

Appeals Court Tosses 'NYPD Blue' Nudity Fine - THR, Esq.

oh...and here's the video. it appears the only place to get it is on the parents television council site

PTC Video Clips -- Playing: NYPDBlue2-25-03.wmv

 

[Valerie]

Appeals Court Tosses 'NYPD Blue' Nudity Fine - THR, Esq.

oh...and here's the video. it appears the only place to get it is on the parents television council site

PTC Video Clips -- Playing: NYPDBlue2-25-03.wmv

Thanks for the info Jillian...

That's pretty funny it's the only place you can find the video!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you know, i look at all the trash that passes for discussion on constitutional issues on this board... and it is fascinating that when a really truly important constitutional issue arises, there's dead silence.

the second circuit court of appeals came down with a decision yesterday afternoon which, if it is affirmed by the high court (or not taken for review by the court, which i think is pretty unlikely), could have wide-ranging affect on future first amendment issues.

Score a major victory for Hollywood in the indecency wars. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York today tossed a $1.4 million FCC fine on ABC and selected affiliates for airing a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue that showed actress Charlotte Ross’ rear end.

Today’s decision comes on the heels of a July three-judge panel from the Second Circuit in the so-called “fleeting expletives” case that the FCC's enforcement of its indecency rules is “unconstitutionally vague and chilling.”

The court, applying its July ruling dealing with unbleeped swear words uttered by Cher and Nicole Richie on Fox awards shows, threw out the fine on the same grounds.

“Although this case involved scripted nudity, the case turns on an application of the same content-based indecency test that [the Fox case] found 'impermissibly vague,’" the court held.

As you might imagine, the Parents Television Council watchdog group is not pleased.

“This ruling is as devoid of common sense as it was predictable,” the PTC says in a statement. “The Second Circuit’s three-judge panel has stated that it doesn’t like the concept of broadcast decency. The court is clearly on a quest to do everything in its power to impede the law – even if the judges’ rationale today conflicts with their prior reasoning for overturning FCC sanctions. It is unfortunate that the industry’s blatant forum-shopping effort is being rewarded with such outlandish decisions.

On the other side, a group called TV Watch, which opposes government control of TV programming, issues its own statement:

“Today’s decision by the court is further evidence that the highest authority on family television viewing is parents and not the government. Eighty-seven percent of parents agree according to our research. Parents already have tools such as the V-Chip and content ratings to help them make decisions based on their own taste, values and style. We will continue to educate parents about such resources.”

Appeals Court Tosses 'NYPD Blue' Nudity Fine - THR, Esq.

oh...and here's the video. it appears the only place to get it is on the parents television council site

PTC Video Clips -- Playing: NYPDBlue2-25-03.wmv

If this was not MAJOR news and made a blurb somewhere I might see it, the only way I know about it is when someone posts like you did.

The FCC is rightfully hammered and I hope if the Supreme Court takes it they agree.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep those who censor get to see all the good stuff

 

[uscitizen]

you know, i look at all the trash that passes for discussion on constitutional issues on this board... and it is fascinating that when a really truly important constitutional issue arises, there's dead silence.

the second circuit court of appeals came down with a decision yesterday afternoon which, if it is affirmed by the high court (or not taken for review by the court, which i think is pretty unlikely), could have wide-ranging affect on future first amendment issues.

Score a major victory for Hollywood in the indecency wars. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York today tossed a $1.4 million FCC fine on ABC and selected affiliates for airing a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue that showed actress Charlotte Ross’ rear end.

Today’s decision comes on the heels of a July three-judge panel from the Second Circuit in the so-called “fleeting expletives” case that the FCC's enforcement of its indecency rules is “unconstitutionally vague and chilling.”

The court, applying its July ruling dealing with unbleeped swear words uttered by Cher and Nicole Richie on Fox awards shows, threw out the fine on the same grounds.

“Although this case involved scripted nudity, the case turns on an application of the same content-based indecency test that [the Fox case] found 'impermissibly vague,’" the court held.

As you might imagine, the Parents Television Council watchdog group is not pleased.

“This ruling is as devoid of common sense as it was predictable,” the PTC says in a statement. “The Second Circuit’s three-judge panel has stated that it doesn’t like the concept of broadcast decency. The court is clearly on a quest to do everything in its power to impede the law – even if the judges’ rationale today conflicts with their prior reasoning for overturning FCC sanctions. It is unfortunate that the industry’s blatant forum-shopping effort is being rewarded with such outlandish decisions.

On the other side, a group called TV Watch, which opposes government control of TV programming, issues its own statement:

“Today’s decision by the court is further evidence that the highest authority on family television viewing is parents and not the government. Eighty-seven percent of parents agree according to our research. Parents already have tools such as the V-Chip and content ratings to help them make decisions based on their own taste, values and style. We will continue to educate parents about such resources.”

Appeals Court Tosses 'NYPD Blue' Nudity Fine - THR, Esq.

oh...and here's the video. it appears the only place to get it is on the parents television council site

PTC Video Clips -- Playing: NYPDBlue2-25-03.wmv

If this was not MAJOR news and made a blurb somewhere I might see it, the only way I know about it is when someone posts like you did.

The FCC is rightfully hammered and I hope if the Supreme Court takes it they agree.

so we will see more openly male gay activity on TV now?

 

[Sallow]

you know, i look at all the trash that passes for discussion on constitutional issues on this board... and it is fascinating that when a really truly important constitutional issue arises, there's dead silence.

the second circuit court of appeals came down with a decision yesterday afternoon which, if it is affirmed by the high court (or not taken for review by the court, which i think is pretty unlikely), could have wide-ranging affect on future first amendment issues.

Score a major victory for Hollywood in the indecency wars. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York today tossed a $1.4 million FCC fine on ABC and selected affiliates for airing a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue that showed actress Charlotte Ross’ rear end.

Today’s decision comes on the heels of a July three-judge panel from the Second Circuit in the so-called “fleeting expletives” case that the FCC's enforcement of its indecency rules is “unconstitutionally vague and chilling.”

The court, applying its July ruling dealing with unbleeped swear words uttered by Cher and Nicole Richie on Fox awards shows, threw out the fine on the same grounds.

“Although this case involved scripted nudity, the case turns on an application of the same content-based indecency test that [the Fox case] found 'impermissibly vague,’" the court held.

As you might imagine, the Parents Television Council watchdog group is not pleased.

“This ruling is as devoid of common sense as it was predictable,” the PTC says in a statement. “The Second Circuit’s three-judge panel has stated that it doesn’t like the concept of broadcast decency. The court is clearly on a quest to do everything in its power to impede the law – even if the judges’ rationale today conflicts with their prior reasoning for overturning FCC sanctions. It is unfortunate that the industry’s blatant forum-shopping effort is being rewarded with such outlandish decisions.

On the other side, a group called TV Watch, which opposes government control of TV programming, issues its own statement:

“Today’s decision by the court is further evidence that the highest authority on family television viewing is parents and not the government. Eighty-seven percent of parents agree according to our research. Parents already have tools such as the V-Chip and content ratings to help them make decisions based on their own taste, values and style. We will continue to educate parents about such resources.”

Appeals Court Tosses 'NYPD Blue' Nudity Fine - THR, Esq.

oh...and here's the video. it appears the only place to get it is on the parents television council site

PTC Video Clips -- Playing: NYPDBlue2-25-03.wmv

When FOX won the right to "lie" about news..this wasn't far behind.

I am surprised it took this long.

But this would be the "unintended consequence". Guess Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake can get their money back now.

And we can all look forward to lots of nudity on the tele!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you know, i look at all the trash that passes for discussion on constitutional issues on this board... and it is fascinating that when a really truly important constitutional issue arises, there's dead silence.

the second circuit court of appeals came down with a decision yesterday afternoon which, if it is affirmed by the high court (or not taken for review by the court, which i think is pretty unlikely), could have wide-ranging affect on future first amendment issues.



Appeals Court Tosses 'NYPD Blue' Nudity Fine - THR, Esq.

oh...and here's the video. it appears the only place to get it is on the parents television council site

PTC Video Clips -- Playing: NYPDBlue2-25-03.wmv

If this was not MAJOR news and made a blurb somewhere I might see it, the only way I know about it is when someone posts like you did.

The FCC is rightfully hammered and I hope if the Supreme Court takes it they agree.

so we will see more openly male gay activity on TV now?

I have no problem with the standards as understood by the Networks. As for gays, so what? Guess what? I am FREE to change the channel.

 

[jillian]

you know, i look at all the trash that passes for discussion on constitutional issues on this board... and it is fascinating that when a really truly important constitutional issue arises, there's dead silence.

the second circuit court of appeals came down with a decision yesterday afternoon which, if it is affirmed by the high court (or not taken for review by the court, which i think is pretty unlikely), could have wide-ranging affect on future first amendment issues.

Score a major victory for Hollywood in the indecency wars. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York today tossed a $1.4 million FCC fine on ABC and selected affiliates for airing a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue that showed actress Charlotte Ross’ rear end.

Today’s decision comes on the heels of a July three-judge panel from the Second Circuit in the so-called “fleeting expletives” case that the FCC's enforcement of its indecency rules is “unconstitutionally vague and chilling.”

The court, applying its July ruling dealing with unbleeped swear words uttered by Cher and Nicole Richie on Fox awards shows, threw out the fine on the same grounds.

“Although this case involved scripted nudity, the case turns on an application of the same content-based indecency test that [the Fox case] found 'impermissibly vague,’" the court held.

As you might imagine, the Parents Television Council watchdog group is not pleased.

“This ruling is as devoid of common sense as it was predictable,” the PTC says in a statement. “The Second Circuit’s three-judge panel has stated that it doesn’t like the concept of broadcast decency. The court is clearly on a quest to do everything in its power to impede the law – even if the judges’ rationale today conflicts with their prior reasoning for overturning FCC sanctions. It is unfortunate that the industry’s blatant forum-shopping effort is being rewarded with such outlandish decisions.

On the other side, a group called TV Watch, which opposes government control of TV programming, issues its own statement:

“Today’s decision by the court is further evidence that the highest authority on family television viewing is parents and not the government. Eighty-seven percent of parents agree according to our research. Parents already have tools such as the V-Chip and content ratings to help them make decisions based on their own taste, values and style. We will continue to educate parents about such resources.”

Appeals Court Tosses 'NYPD Blue' Nudity Fine - THR, Esq.

oh...and here's the video. it appears the only place to get it is on the parents television council site

PTC Video Clips -- Playing: NYPDBlue2-25-03.wmv

If this was not MAJOR news and made a blurb somewhere I might see it, the only way I know about it is when someone posts like you did.

The FCC is rightfully hammered and I hope if the Supreme Court takes it they agree.

i don't know. i think given that the first amendment is probably what gives sway to everything else, it's pretty significant.

i'm figuring drudge didn't post it so the usual suspects didn't have a clue. (not you, but they know who they are).

i'd be surprised if the supremes overturn it. i think the second circuit was dead on.

here's the decision, btw

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...6dc698-a93e-42d7-ace3-efd925e39e34/11/hilite/

 

[jillian]

you know, i look at all the trash that passes for discussion on constitutional issues on this board... and it is fascinating that when a really truly important constitutional issue arises, there's dead silence.

the second circuit court of appeals came down with a decision yesterday afternoon which, if it is affirmed by the high court (or not taken for review by the court, which i think is pretty unlikely), could have wide-ranging affect on future first amendment issues.

Score a major victory for Hollywood in the indecency wars. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York today tossed a $1.4 million FCC fine on ABC and selected affiliates for airing a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue that showed actress Charlotte Ross’ rear end.

Today’s decision comes on the heels of a July three-judge panel from the Second Circuit in the so-called “fleeting expletives” case that the FCC's enforcement of its indecency rules is “unconstitutionally vague and chilling.”

The court, applying its July ruling dealing with unbleeped swear words uttered by Cher and Nicole Richie on Fox awards shows, threw out the fine on the same grounds.

“Although this case involved scripted nudity, the case turns on an application of the same content-based indecency test that [the Fox case] found 'impermissibly vague,’" the court held.

As you might imagine, the Parents Television Council watchdog group is not pleased.

“This ruling is as devoid of common sense as it was predictable,” the PTC says in a statement. “The Second Circuit’s three-judge panel has stated that it doesn’t like the concept of broadcast decency. The court is clearly on a quest to do everything in its power to impede the law – even if the judges’ rationale today conflicts with their prior reasoning for overturning FCC sanctions. It is unfortunate that the industry’s blatant forum-shopping effort is being rewarded with such outlandish decisions.

On the other side, a group called TV Watch, which opposes government control of TV programming, issues its own statement:

“Today’s decision by the court is further evidence that the highest authority on family television viewing is parents and not the government. Eighty-seven percent of parents agree according to our research. Parents already have tools such as the V-Chip and content ratings to help them make decisions based on their own taste, values and style. We will continue to educate parents about such resources.”

Appeals Court Tosses 'NYPD Blue' Nudity Fine - THR, Esq.

oh...and here's the video. it appears the only place to get it is on the parents television council site

PTC Video Clips -- Playing: NYPDBlue2-25-03.wmv

When FOX won the right to "lie" about news..this wasn't far behind.

I am surprised it took this long.

But this would be the "unintended consequence". Guess Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake can get their money back now.

And we can all look forward to lots of nudity on the tele!

our tv will probably catch up to other places in the world where no one cares if you see a set of boobs.

 

[zzzz]

As you say there are plenty of avenues to keep children from viewing adult material. If there were no methods other than turning the TV off I could see some argument for indecancy standards but since there are methods available to everyone let the user decide.

 

[California Girl]

you know, i look at all the trash that passes for discussion on constitutional issues on this board... and it is fascinating that when a really truly important constitutional issue arises, there's dead silence.

the second circuit court of appeals came down with a decision yesterday afternoon which, if it is affirmed by the high court (or not taken for review by the court, which i think is pretty unlikely), could have wide-ranging affect on future first amendment issues.

Score a major victory for Hollywood in the indecency wars. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York today tossed a $1.4 million FCC fine on ABC and selected affiliates for airing a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue that showed actress Charlotte Ross’ rear end.

Today’s decision comes on the heels of a July three-judge panel from the Second Circuit in the so-called “fleeting expletives” case that the FCC's enforcement of its indecency rules is “unconstitutionally vague and chilling.”

The court, applying its July ruling dealing with unbleeped swear words uttered by Cher and Nicole Richie on Fox awards shows, threw out the fine on the same grounds.

“Although this case involved scripted nudity, the case turns on an application of the same content-based indecency test that [the Fox case] found 'impermissibly vague,’" the court held.

As you might imagine, the Parents Television Council watchdog group is not pleased.

“This ruling is as devoid of common sense as it was predictable,” the PTC says in a statement. “The Second Circuit’s three-judge panel has stated that it doesn’t like the concept of broadcast decency. The court is clearly on a quest to do everything in its power to impede the law – even if the judges’ rationale today conflicts with their prior reasoning for overturning FCC sanctions. It is unfortunate that the industry’s blatant forum-shopping effort is being rewarded with such outlandish decisions.

On the other side, a group called TV Watch, which opposes government control of TV programming, issues its own statement:

“Today’s decision by the court is further evidence that the highest authority on family television viewing is parents and not the government. Eighty-seven percent of parents agree according to our research. Parents already have tools such as the V-Chip and content ratings to help them make decisions based on their own taste, values and style. We will continue to educate parents about such resources.”

Appeals Court Tosses 'NYPD Blue' Nudity Fine - THR, Esq.

oh...and here's the video. it appears the only place to get it is on the parents television council site

PTC Video Clips -- Playing: NYPDBlue2-25-03.wmv

When FOX won the right to "lie" about news..this wasn't far behind.

I am surprised it took this long.

But this would be the "unintended consequence". Guess Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake can get their money back now.

And we can all look forward to lots of nudity on the tele!

For the sake of balance (and to ensure that the drooling fools who keep using this 'Fox won right to lie' crap are reminded of the facts).... would you care to name the other news corporations who supported Fox? Because if you won't, I certainly will.

It was not Fox..... it was a wide variety of news outlets.

Now that I've handed you the rope, I assume you will happily hang yourself before I do it.

 

[Sallow]

you know, i look at all the trash that passes for discussion on constitutional issues on this board... and it is fascinating that when a really truly important constitutional issue arises, there's dead silence.

the second circuit court of appeals came down with a decision yesterday afternoon which, if it is affirmed by the high court (or not taken for review by the court, which i think is pretty unlikely), could have wide-ranging affect on future first amendment issues.



Appeals Court Tosses 'NYPD Blue' Nudity Fine - THR, Esq.

oh...and here's the video. it appears the only place to get it is on the parents television council site

PTC Video Clips -- Playing: NYPDBlue2-25-03.wmv

When FOX won the right to "lie" about news..this wasn't far behind.

I am surprised it took this long.

But this would be the "unintended consequence". Guess Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake can get their money back now.

And we can all look forward to lots of nudity on the tele!

our tv will probably catch up to other places in the world where no one cares if you see a set of boobs.

The usual suspects will bray about "the children" but we are going the way of European Television..no doubt.

But those places generally self-censor and leave the more racy stuff for later time slots.

 

[jillian]

you know, i look at all the trash that passes for discussion on constitutional issues on this board... and it is fascinating that when a really truly important constitutional issue arises, there's dead silence.

the second circuit court of appeals came down with a decision yesterday afternoon which, if it is affirmed by the high court (or not taken for review by the court, which i think is pretty unlikely), could have wide-ranging affect on future first amendment issues.



Appeals Court Tosses 'NYPD Blue' Nudity Fine - THR, Esq.

oh...and here's the video. it appears the only place to get it is on the parents television council site

PTC Video Clips -- Playing: NYPDBlue2-25-03.wmv

When FOX won the right to "lie" about news..this wasn't far behind.

I am surprised it took this long.

But this would be the "unintended consequence". Guess Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake can get their money back now.

And we can all look forward to lots of nudity on the tele!

For the sake of balance (and to ensure that the drooling fools who keep using this 'Fox won right to lie' crap are reminded of the facts).... would you care to name the other news corporations who supported Fox? Because if you won't, I certainly will.

It was not Fox..... it was a wide variety of news outlets.

Now that I've handed you the rope, I assume you will happily hang yourself before I do it.

ummmm... aside from the fact that i'm really not interested in having this thread turn into a discussion about fauxnews, since this issue is an interesting one, i need to correct something you said. the fox won the right to lie... what would you call the failure to hold them libel for forcing a reporter to lie on the air?

the court's holding was that "the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes".

Broadcasting Law and Regulation

Is it illegal to force journalists to lie on the air? Does the FCC "news distortion rule" mean anything at all?

In 1996 and 1997, Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson investigated the use of a synthetic growth hormone (BGH) in Florida dairies. They found that the hormone probably had dangerous side effects, which was why it was banned in Canada and several European countries. When their report was completed, they also found their TV station, Fox affiliate WTVT-TV, was under heavy legal pressure from hormone manufacturer Monsanto.

Rather than airing a program that balanced public health concerns against the industry's position, Monsanto's lawyers told Fox management that they would sue if any program was run. Eventually, after a considerable amount of argument, Akre and Wilson were fired.

They sued WTVT and won in August, 2000, claiming that WTVT fired Aker after she threatened to tell the FCC that it had tried to distort the news. The Florida whistleblower law allows an employee to recover damages when an employer retaliates against efforts to report unlawful behavior. But a federal appeals court overturned the ruling, saying that WTVT had not broken the state's whistleblower statute. And technically, while the FCC had ruled against distortions of news in other cases, regulatory hearings were technically not the same as law. ( New World Communications of Tampa v. Akre, 2003 WL 327505, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D460. ) See RCFP story "FCC No Distortion Policy ..."

Broadcasting law

 

[jillian]

When FOX won the right to "lie" about news..this wasn't far behind.

I am surprised it took this long.

But this would be the "unintended consequence". Guess Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake can get their money back now.

And we can all look forward to lots of nudity on the tele!

our tv will probably catch up to other places in the world where no one cares if you see a set of boobs.

The usual suspects will bray about "the children" but we are going the way of European Television..no doubt.

But those places generally self-censor and leave the more racy stuff for later time slots.

i think that should probably be what happens here. i have no problem changing the channel if i don't want my son to watch something. in fact, i have a lot more issues with the courseness of some of the characters on TV than i ever would with a little nudity.

it's also interesting to note that the stations that were fined were in the central part of the country since the show in question aired an hour earlier there than they did on the east coast.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


I would just like to say that Charlotte Ross's tush appearing on NYPD Blue is not indecent.


....................... Now, Dennis Franz's butt appearing on NYPD Blue...


.................................That was indecent!



Carry on.


>>>>

 

[Talismen]

And we can all look forward to lots of nudity on the tele!

The Brits already have this. Have for years.

Not sayin' their government is great or anything, but....We've always been a "nose in the air" country, seemingly walking about as if we would never ever engage in peeping at nude pics, movies/videos...ever.

We've been fooling ourselves.
We're not chaste. By any stretch of the imagination.

 

[George Costanza]

When FOX won the right to "lie" about news..this wasn't far behind.

I am surprised it took this long.

But this would be the "unintended consequence". Guess Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake can get their money back now.

And we can all look forward to lots of nudity on the tele!

For the sake of balance (and to ensure that the drooling fools who keep using this 'Fox won right to lie' crap are reminded of the facts).... would you care to name the other news corporations who supported Fox? Because if you won't, I certainly will.

It was not Fox..... it was a wide variety of news outlets.

Now that I've handed you the rope, I assume you will happily hang yourself before I do it.

ummmm... aside from the fact that i'm really not interested in having this thread turn into a discussion about fauxnews, since this issue is an interesting one, i need to correct something you said. the fox won the right to lie... what would you call the failure to hold them libel for forcing a reporter to lie on the air?

the court's holding was that "the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes".

Broadcasting Law and Regulation

Is it illegal to force journalists to lie on the air? Does the FCC "news distortion rule" mean anything at all?

In 1996 and 1997, Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson investigated the use of a synthetic growth hormone (BGH) in Florida dairies. They found that the hormone probably had dangerous side effects, which was why it was banned in Canada and several European countries. When their report was completed, they also found their TV station, Fox affiliate WTVT-TV, was under heavy legal pressure from hormone manufacturer Monsanto.

Rather than airing a program that balanced public health concerns against the industry's position, Monsanto's lawyers told Fox management that they would sue if any program was run. Eventually, after a considerable amount of argument, Akre and Wilson were fired.

They sued WTVT and won in August, 2000, claiming that WTVT fired Aker after she threatened to tell the FCC that it had tried to distort the news. The Florida whistleblower law allows an employee to recover damages when an employer retaliates against efforts to report unlawful behavior. But a federal appeals court overturned the ruling, saying that WTVT had not broken the state's whistleblower statute. And technically, while the FCC had ruled against distortions of news in other cases, regulatory hearings were technically not the same as law. ( New World Communications of Tampa v. Akre, 2003 WL 327505, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D460. ) See RCFP story "FCC No Distortion Policy ..."

Broadcasting law

Very well stated. I await California Girl's response to this.

 

[uscitizen]

you know, i look at all the trash that passes for discussion on constitutional issues on this board... and it is fascinating that when a really truly important constitutional issue arises, there's dead silence.

the second circuit court of appeals came down with a decision yesterday afternoon which, if it is affirmed by the high court (or not taken for review by the court, which i think is pretty unlikely), could have wide-ranging affect on future first amendment issues.



Appeals Court Tosses 'NYPD Blue' Nudity Fine - THR, Esq.

oh...and here's the video. it appears the only place to get it is on the parents television council site

PTC Video Clips -- Playing: NYPDBlue2-25-03.wmv

When FOX won the right to "lie" about news..this wasn't far behind.

I am surprised it took this long.

But this would be the "unintended consequence". Guess Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake can get their money back now.

And we can all look forward to lots of nudity on the tele!

our tv will probably catch up to other places in the world where no one cares if you see a set of boobs.

Yeah America is strange. Many/most? parents think nothing of their small children seeing someone being sawn or chopped into pieces, but let a naked breast be shown and they get all upset. Go figure.

 

[jillian]

When FOX won the right to "lie" about news..this wasn't far behind.

I am surprised it took this long.

But this would be the "unintended consequence". Guess Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake can get their money back now.

And we can all look forward to lots of nudity on the tele!

our tv will probably catch up to other places in the world where no one cares if you see a set of boobs.

Yeah America is strange. Many/most? parents think nothing of their small children seeing someone being sawn or chopped into pieces, but let a naked breast be shown and they get all upset. Go figure.

it goes back to the puritans.. they were boob averse.

 

[goldcatt]

I hadn't seen this till now. All I can say is....excellent!

No, the Supremes won't overturn this - if they choose to hear it at all. The issue was already settled. Good call by the 2d.