[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.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.