As I noted earlier, the Supreme Court just handed down a historical First Amendment decision in the case of Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations. Here are my initial general thoughts on the case that were just sent out in a PFF press release. Again, more commentary to follow later today as I continue to digest the decision.

While the Court decided this case on purely procedural grounds, its failure to address the constitutional issues at stake will leave the First Amendment freedoms of both media creators and consumers in this country uncertain until another case winds its way up to the court, which could take years. Practically speaking, as Justice Thomas noted, what’s the point of continuing to apply a censorship regime to one of the oldest mediums—broadcast TV and radio—when kids are flocking to unregulated mediums in large numbers? At this point, we’re doing little more than protecting adults from themselves and destroying over-the-air broadcasting in the process.

Until the Court clearly addresses the First Amendment protection of broadcasting in light of the Digital Revolution, we’ll just have to speculate as to how to reconcile the broadcast law of bygone era with the Court’s recent Internet jurisprudence—which has strongly supported the First Amendment. Although new media technologies and platforms are not covered currently by FCC content controls, the specter of regulation now haunts all media as platforms continue to converge and broadcast content gets repurposed on other platforms.

Finally, what makes the Court’s ruling even less sensible is that all parents have an extensive array of tools and strategies at their disposal to control media in their homes and in their lives of the children. That is especially the case for broadcast television programming, which is easier to control than ever before. The Court has held that user empowerment and private blocking solutions should shield the Internet from content regulation. Why shouldn’t the same principle apply to broadcasting?

Today was a big day — and not just because there was an election going on! As I mentioned yesterday, the other big news was that the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments in the potentially historic free speech case of Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Again, all the background you need can be found in my post yesterday, so here I will just be summarizing my general thoughts about how the oral arguments played out this morning.

Unfortunately, because no electronic devices or even notepads are allowed in the courtroom, much of what I am relaying here is from memory or from the notes that I surreptitiously scribbled on a tiny piece of scrap paper when the guards weren’t looking. (And yes, I have been reprimanded before for taking notes in the Court!)  The transcript has just been released, however, so you can read it through and judge for yourself.  Anyway, here are some general thoughts:

• Balance of Questioning by Justices: Generally speaking, things did not go as well as I had hoped they would.  The justices asked some tough questions for both counsels, but some of the justices seemed surprisingly deferential to the FCC. When Fox lawyer Carter Phillips rose to speak, for example, he was almost immediately interrupted by a barrage of questions from Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts, who both seemed sympathetic to the FCC’s argument that the agency had taken sufficient steps to justify its change of policy about “fleeting expletives” on TV or radio. Scalia, in particular, was probably the most deferential to the agency throughout the questioning this morning.  Not a good sign for the broadcasters or the First Amendment.

• The Chicken-Egg Debate about What Drives Culture:  Scalia also raised the most hard-nosed questions about the impact of such words on our culture. In terms of the ‘chicken-and-egg’ debate about whether media influences society or media just reflects society, Scalia clearly believes that media drives culture. He suggested that broadcasters had unduly influenced culture.  Again, not good for the broadcasters or free speech advocates, but other justices didn’t say much on this issue.

• The APA & Substantive Constitutional Issues: Souter (joined by Roberts and Scalia) also led a line of questioning about whether Fox was essentially asking for a new test under administrative law that provided less deference to an agency when substantive First Amendment cases where being considered. There have always been sticky admin law / APA-related issues involving agency deference when substantive issues and constitutional rights were at stake.  It will be very interesting to hear what, if anything, the Court has to say about that in this case. But, at least from the tone of the questioning I heard today, the Justices still seem quite deferential to agency decision-making even if free speech issues are in play.  Again, really not good for the broadcasters, but this could tip the opposite direction in the final decision.

• Scarcity v. Abundance as a Regulatory Rationale: There was a very interesting line of questioning raised by Justice Ginsburg that lead to a shocking response from U.S. Solicitor General Gregory Garre. She asked about what impact the Internet and online speech cases has had — or should have — for the case before the court. She stressed how much things had changed since the Court’s Pacifica holding in 1978 and implied that might have some bearing on the matter before the court today. [This was one of the key points I raised in my amicus with CDT, in which we argue that changing technological and marketplace realities have a profound bearing on this case and FCC regulation of speech in general].

Amazingly, Solicitor General Garre suggested that the government actually had a stronger case today when it regulates broadcast platforms differently than all other forms of media. His reasoning: Precisely because there are so many other unregulated platforms where kids might see or hear objectionable media, it was vital for the government to quarantine one platform and make sure it is safe from objectionable programming. This is an astonishing argument for the government to set forth as a rationale for regulation as it essentially turns the old “scarcity rationale” for regulation on its head.  Back in the old days, we were told broadcasting had to be regulated because it was scarce.  Today, by contrast, the government tells us we have to regulate broadcast platforms because of media abundance. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t!

This line of questioning generally helps the broadcasters, but if the Court doesn’t reach the substantive First Amendment issues in its decision, then it’s meaningless.

• Community Standards: On a related note, Justice Ginsburg also asked some sharp questions about the continuing sensibility of the “contemporary community standards” test for broadcast television and radio regulation. She wanted to know how the FCC determines these things and how they surveyed the public to determine what “the community” thought was appropriate for broadcast TV and radio. Solicitor General Garre didn’t really have a good answer, and how could he; this is arbitrary government at its worst. The FCC is asking us to believe that a handful of vocal anti-free speech advocates speak for all Americans when they complain to the FCC about various shows. It’s a farce. Millions of average American viewers just turn off the TV and go to bed happy each night after watching TV; they don’t send in a letter to the FCC saying that they liked what they saw. By contrast, the regulatory advocates bombard the FCC with complaints and then the FCC says that counts as the will of the people.

Anyway, these questions about community standards generally help the broadcasters, but I doubt the court will follow through with this line of reasoning in their final decision. They should, however, because it is silly to think the relevant “community” can be determined just by considering broadcast in isolation.  After all, more and more kids these days are watching video online and via other alternative media distribution platforms.

• The End of Live TV & Radio?: There were several questions from Justices Breyer and Scalia about tape delays and whether broadcasters had the ability to essentially delay all live programming to make sure no dirty words got through.  I thought the justices would have understood why ending live television and radio was a bad idea, but some of them sounded like they were enamored with that notion. Again, very, very troubling for the broadcasters. (Incidentally, during this line of questioning, I found myself thinking how now might be a good time to invest in the tape delay technology business! Seriously, if the FCC wins this case, it may be that every broadcaster in America has to invest in tape delay equipment and rigorously scrub live TV on the fly.  Just think how silly this is in the age of the Internet and instantaneous online video.)

• • –

Again, these are just my initial thoughts. I need to go through the transcript again later and digest everything again before I say anything more.  Overall, however, I am concerned for the First Amendment after this morning’s arguments in the Supreme Court. We could get a close decision in favor of the FCC and the agency’s ongoing effort to expand content controls.

On the other hand, it’s difficult to get a read on some the members of the court. After all, Justices Alito and Thomas didn’t say a peep today, and Justice Kennedy only spoke up once or twice.  And just because some of them asked hostile questions that seemed deferential to the FCC, that doesn’t automatically mean they will ultimately vote in the agency favor in this case.  We’ll just have to wait till next spring or summer to get their final verdict.

Tomorrow morning, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the potentially historic free speech case of Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. I plan on attending and will try to post some thoughts about how the arguments played out here later tomorrow afternoon or evening. [I won’t be able to live blog of Twitter it because no electronic devices are allowed in the courtroom, which I’ve always thought is outrageous.] In the meantime, here again is the background of the case.

The FCC v. Fox case is the indecency case involving the FCC’s new policy for “fleeting expletives.” I wrote about the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision here and the full 2nd Circuit decision is here. [By contrast, the so-called “Janet Jackson case” — CBS v. FCC — took place in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and that court recently handed down a decision that also went against the FCC. I wrote about the Third Circuit’s decision here.]

In a 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.” The decision demonstrates how, over just the past few years, the FCC has arbitrarily thrown out 30+ years worth of precedent and greatly expand the scope of its regulatory authority over speech on broadcast TV and radio. As a result, the FCC’s order was vacated and remanded to the agency. The agency appealed the decision, however, and the Supreme Court accepted it for review.

As I noted back in August, I submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court along with my friends John Morris and Sophia Cope of the Center for Democracy & Technology. In that brief, we argued that this case will have profound ramifications for the future of the First Amendment and the regulatory treatment of old and new media platforms alike. It is important that the FCC not be permitted to so casually change its regulatory approach, as it did in the matter before the Court today. The FCC’s new approach has created a confusing and arbitrary regulatory atmosphere that leaves many speakers wondering what they can and cannot say on broadcast television and radio stations today.

It’s also vital that the Court recognize how the FCC is being unduly influenced by a small handful of particular vociferous special interest groups who are artificially inflating the number of indecency complaints and attempting to propagate the myth that they speak for the masses. It is important for the Supreme Court to not allow a small minority to achieve a “heckler’s veto” over content on television or radio.

Finally, it is important that the Supreme Court rein in the FCC in this matter to also ensure the agency does not seek to expand its powers to cover new media platforms. The First Amendment rights of speakers using cable, satellite, and even the Internet, could be at stake here. We live in an age of media and technological convergence and, therefore, it is vital the Court not allow the FCC to engage in a form of regulatory convergence by letting this old regime bleed over into new quarters.

What many of us will be listening for tomorrow during oral arguments is some sort of indication of whether the Court wants to get into the substantive First Amendment issues at stake here, or instead just stick to the procedural (APA) issues that were at the heart of the Second Circuit decision. In particular, a lot of us are wondering whether the Court will get into the the thorny issues and theories set forth in the Court’s controversial 1978 decision of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation.  This summer, upon its 30th anniversary, I penned a 6-part series of essays about the Pacifica decision and the “pervasiveness doctrine.”  It will be very interesting to see if pervasiveness is discussed tomorrow in the questioning by the justices. If it is, that could signal that the court might be willing to get into the substantive First Amendment issues here instead of merely addressing process-related concerns.

If you are interested in reading more opinions about the FCC v. Fox case, I have itemized all the amicus briefs before the court. [I have also blasted some folks on the Left who filed briefs in the case for failing to defend the First Amendment and instead calling upon the court to just defend their sacred regulatory cows (namely, the Red Lion decision and the “scarcity rationale” for FCC regulation of the media marketplace.)] Finally, here are a few additional articles or essays about the case that you might want to check out for basic background, or to see what others are saying:

• SCOTUS Wiki page for the case
• SCOTUS Blog argument preview
• Adam Liptak, “Must It Always Be About Sex?” New York Times
• William Triplett, “Fox v. FCC heads to Court,”Variety
• David G. Savage, “On the Supreme Court Docket: bleeeeeep,” Los Angeles Times
• Joan Biskupic, “Supreme Court to Hear FCC Appeal over Dirty Words,” USA Today