Over at Ars Technica, Matt Lasar does a nice job pointing out how the FCC’s quarterly indecency complaint totals have again been inflated by one group: the Parents Television Council. This is something Lasar has written about before and he’s one of the few journalists who continues to ask sharp questions about the ongoing manipulation of these statistics by PTC. As Lasar notes in his latest piece:

for the first quarter of this year, show the viewers relatively calm at 578 complaints in January, then 505 in February, followed by 179,997 in March? 179,997? Um, did we miss something? Did television really get that much more indecent in March? No worries. In these situations, we know what to do. We go over and check out the Parents Television Council‘s website. And sure enough, there’s a plausible instigator—a PTC viewer action alert crusade against a March 8 episode of the animated comedy show the PTC just loves to hate, Fox TV’s Family Guy.

This “complaint box stuffing” is something I wrote quite a bit about in the past, especially in my 2005 paper, “Examining the FCC’s Complaint-Driven Broadcast Indecency Enforcement Process.” As I pointed out there, “The PTC’s increasingly effective use of computer-generated campaigns against specific TV programs is a leading factor in explaining the large jump in indecency complaints in recent years.” Specifically, as I noted in that paper (as well as a Supreme Court filing with my friends at CDT), the FCC quietly and without major notice made two methodological changes to its tallying of broadcast indecency complaints in 2003 & 2004 that PTC  requested:

• On July 1, 2003, the agency began tallying each computer-generated complaint sent to the FCC by any advocacy group as an individual complaint, rather than as one complaint as had been done previously. The advocacy group benefiting from that change had challenged the FCC to make the change by June 30th and boasted later that it was responsible for the FCC’s redirection, citing reassurances of FCC commissioners.
• In the first quarter of 2004 — the time when the Super Bowl incident with Janet Jackson occurred — the FCC began counting complaints multiple times if the individual sent the complaint to more than one office within the FCC. This change, which had the capability of increasing by a factor of 5 or 6 or 7 the number of complaints recorded, was noted in a footnote of that quarter’s FCC Quarterly Report. The footnote acknowledged that “[t]he reported counts may also include duplicate complaints or contacts…”

As I have made clear before, I have absolutely no problem with the PTC, or any other advocacy group exercising their First Amendment rights to petition their government and make their views known. What I do have a problem with — a very big problem, in fact — is when one group so disproportionately influences the process, especially by changing the way complaints are counted. And I’m even willing to ignore the “robo-complaint” nature of their automated complaint-generation machine. After all, countless other groups use similar tactics today to flood government offices and agencies with thousands or even millions of digital form letters. But when you change the rules of the game to favor you and your preferred outcome, well, that’s just shameful.

What’s even more troubling about the way the FCC changed it complaint counting process to make the PTC happy is that the agency failed to provide the public official notice of these changes outside of some limited and quite confusing fine print in the footnotes of quarterly reports. Look as hard as you want at the FCC website and you will not find any press releases or summaries of these changes during that period. And there does not appear to be any mention of these changes in any speeches by FCC Commissioners or bureau chiefs then or since.  More shockingly, as far as I can tell, the FCC only made these methodological changes for indecency complaints, not for any other category of complaints that the agency receives!  Finally, and probably worst of all, these bogus numbers were then used by FCC officials and congressional lawmakers as supporting evidence for the supposed public outcry for more regulation of television and radio.

It’s an outrage, especially when you realize that the programs that the PTC wants censored are among the most popular on television, as I thoroughly documented in my paper.  In other words, they don’t speak for most of us when it comes to what we want to watch or listen to.  I hope the new FCC understands these bogus indecency complaint numbers do not reflect the wishes of most consumers.  Finally, those in the PTC or elsewhere who are offended by “The Family Guy” or other shows on television have plenty of tools and methods at their disposal to make sure those programs are not seen in their homes.  Please don’t try to impose your will on the rest of us when you have the tools at your disposal to do this job for you and your family.  Let’s not make Uncle Sam our National Nanny.

Over at Ars, Matt Lasar has a piece about the need for better FCC indecency complaint statistics. He has been monitoring the wild fluctuations in indecency complaint tallies in recent years and wonders:

whether the agency’s indecency/obscenity statistics reflect spontaneous viewer response to the level of erotic/linguistic friskiness on TV or solely on the power of coordinated campaigns launched by groups like the Parents Television Council.

Indeed, PTC is the primary culprit. As I noted in my big 2005 PFF report “Examining the FCC’s Complaint-Driven Broadcast Indecency Enforcement Process”, “The PTC’s increasingly effective use of computer-generated campaigns against specific TV programs is a leading factor in explaining the large jump in indecency complaints in recent years.” The PTC has even taken credit for it themselves, as I noted in the paper.

How did the FCC’s indecency process get so screwy, and how did the PTC come to influence it so greatly? As I noted in that paper (as well as a Supreme Court filing with my friends at CDT), in recent years the FCC has quietly and without major notice made two methodological changes to its tallying of broadcast indecency complaints, both changes urged upon the FCC by a single advocacy group — the PTC — targeting broadcast indecency:

• On July 1, 2003, the agency began tallying each computer-generated complaint sent to the FCC by any advocacy group as an individual complaint, rather than as one complaint as had been done previously. The advocacy group benefiting from that change had challenged the FCC to make the change by June 30th and boasted later that it was responsible for the FCC’s redirection, citing reassurances of FCC commissioners.
• In the first quarter of 2004 — the time when the Super Bowl incident with Janet Jackson occurred — the FCC began counting complaints multiple times if the individual sent the complaint to more than one office within the FCC. This change, which had the capability of increasing by a factor of 5 or 6 or 7 the number of complaints recorded, was noted in a footnote of that quarter’s FCC Quarterly Report. The footnote acknowledged that “[t]he reported counts may also include duplicate complaints or contacts…”

For many years, the PTC has pressured the FCC to change their methodology to give greater weight to their computer-generated e-mail complaint campaigns. It appears their efforts paid off and now the PTC and other groups are essentially able to “stuff the ballot box” in terms of inflating indecency complaints at the FCC and potentially spurring increased regulatory activism as a result. In turn, these bogus numbers are cited in the press and in political statements by lawmakers when they are seeking to expand fines or regulations.

Unfortunately, even if Congress forced the FCC to fix these problems with the indecency complaint process, so long as the agency and that process exists there will be groups like PTC trying to use it to influence public policy and impose speech controls in this country. The millions of Americans who are perfectly happy with what they see on TV or hear on radio are never going to send a letter to the FCC saying as much. It’s only the hecklers that bombard the FCC with complaints and get them heard and acted upon, even if they only represent a minority viewpoint about video and audio programming.

Of course, these hecklers could just turn off those devices or use parental control tools and stratgies to deal with what their kids see and hear. Instead, those folks want to impose their will on ALL of us. Worse yet, they now are expanding their mission to include the Internet. Thankfully, we don’t have a Federal Computer Commission fielding bogus complaints about the Net.  At least not yet.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lost another major First Amendment-related case today involving its recent efforts to expand the parameters of “indecency” enforcement for broadcast programming. The case involves the now infamous “wardrobe malfunction” that occurred during an unscripted 2004 Super Bowl halftime performance involving singers Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson. When Ms. Jackson’s breast was exposed on camera for nine-sixteenths of one second, the FCC immediately launched an investigation into the incident and fines were eventually levied on the grounds that the fleeting exposure of Ms. Jackson’s breast was a violation of broadcast decency standards. CBS challenged the FCC’s decision, leading to a legal showdown in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In today’s decision, CBS Corp. v. FCC, the three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit ruled that the Federal Communications Commission “acted arbitrarily and capriciously” when it imposed a $550,000 fine on CBS for the incident. The court’s 102-page decision, which can be found here, was decided squarely on procedural grounds. That is, it didn’t touch the more substantive speech-related issues or precedents such as the Pacifica or Red Lion decisions that constitute the foundations of all modern FCC broadcast regulation.

The case is important because it now joins the June 2007 decision handed down by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Fox Television Stations v. FCC. That was the indecency case involving the FCC’s new policy for “fleeting expletives.” In that 2-1 decision, the Second Circuit ruled that “the FCC’s new policy sanctioning ‘fleeting expletives’ is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to articulate a reasoned basis for its change in policy.” As a result, the FCC’s order was vacated and remanded to the agency. [And the FCC is now challenging the decision in the Supreme Court.]

This is very similar to what the 3rd Circuit said today in the CBS case. Specifically, the court held that:

Like any agency, the FCC may change its policies without judicial second-guessing. But it cannot change a well-established course of action without supplying notice of and a reasoned explanation for its policy departure. Because the FCC failed to satisfy this requirement, we find its new policy arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act as applied to CBS. (p. 14)

The court reached that finding by noting that the agency’s previously “restrained” enforcement policy had changed quite suddenly and dramatically, and without much justification. “[A]n an agency must be afforded great latitude to change its policies, but it must justify its actions by articulating a reasoned analysis behind the change,” the court argued. (pp. 30-31) “The agency’s obligation to supply a reasoned analysis for a policy departure requires an affirmative showing on record.” (p. 32). But the FCC failed in that regard, the court said:

The Commission’s conclusion on the nature and scope of its indecency regime – including its fleeting material policy – is at odds with the history of its actions in regulating indecent broadcasts. In the nearly three decades between the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pacifica and CBS’s broadcast of the Halftime Show, the FCC had never varied its approach to indecency regulation based on the format of broadcasted content. (pp. 36-37)

The FCC was basically arguing that its actions in the Fox and CBS cases were nothing new and that the agency should be allowed to impose significant new penalties for fleeting words or images. But neither the 2nd or 3rd Circuits bought that argument. In today’s decision the 3rd Circuit, for example, the judges held:

In sum, the balance of the evidence weighs heavily against the FCC’s contention that its restrained enforcement policy for fleeting material extended only to fleeting words and not to fleeting images. As detailed, the Commission’s entire regulatory scheme treated broadcasted images and words interchangeably for purposes of determining indecency. Therefore, it follows that the Commission’s exception for fleeting material under that regulatory scheme likewise treated images and words alike. Three decades of FCC action support this conclusion. Accordingly, we find the FCC’s conclusion on this issue, even as an interpretation of its own policies and precedent, “counter to the evidence before the agency” and “so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. Because the Commission fails to acknowledge that it has changed its policy on fleeting material, it is unable to comply with the requirement under State Farm that an agency supply a reasoned explanation for its departure from prior policy. (pp. 47-48)

As you might have guessed from the context of that passage, the State Farm case referenced by the court dealt with how an agency must reach a decision by examining relevant data and articulating a reasonable explanation for the rational connection between that data and the decision made by the agency. Again, the court today held that the FCC did not pass that test nor the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act: “Consequentially, the FCC’s new policy of including fleeting images within the scope of actionable indecency is arbitrary and capricious under StateFarm and the Administrative Procedure Act, and therefore invalid as applied to CBS.” (p. 49)

The court also rejected the FCC’s assertion that CBS should be held liable on the common law doctrine of respondeat superior, which allows liability to be imposed on employers for the actions of employees. The question is: Where Timberlake and Jackson CBS employees? The court said no:

it is undisputed that CBS’s actual control over the Halftime Show performances did not extend to all aspects of the performers’ work. The performers, not CBS, provided their own choreography and retained substantial latitude to develop the visual performances that would accompany their songs. Similarly, as the FCC notes, CBS personnel reviewed the performers’ selections of set items and wardrobes, but the performers retained discretion to make those choices in the first instance and provided some of their own materials.

Instead, the court held that Timberlake and Jackson were “independent contractors” for CBS and that the FCC was trying to breathe far too much life into the doctrine:

Under the FCC’s rationale, band members contracted to play a one-song set on a talk show or a “one-show-only” televised concert special presumably would be employees of the broadcaster. These performers – who frequently promote their work through brief contractual relationships with media outlets – would be “employees” of dozens of employers every year.

So, what happens next? It’s likely that the FCC will appeal, just as it has in the 2nd Circuit Fox case. One wonders why the agency doesn’t just throw in the towel. As my boss Ken Ferree, President of PFF, noted in response to today’s decision: “Perhaps it is time to read the handwriting on the wall: the guardians of our First Amendment freedoms in the courts are not going to allow the FCC to play the role of media supernanny. A free and vibrant, even if occasionally coarse, marketplace of speech is the cornerstone of a free society. We allow government to meddle in that marketplace at our peril.”

You will not be surprised to hear that I agree with Ken! And I summarized some additional concerns about the FCC’s expanded activism on this front in a joint amicus brief with the Center for Democracy & Technology to the 3rd Circuit before this case was heard. You can find that filing here.