438 U.S. 726 (1978), 77-528, Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation

Docket NºNo. 77-528
Citation438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073
Party NameFederal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation
Case DateJuly 03, 1978
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 726

438 U.S. 726 (1978)

98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073

Federal Communications Commission

v.

Pacifica Foundation

No. 77-528

United States Supreme Court

July 3, 1978

Argued April 18, 19, 1978

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Syllabus

A radio station of respondent Pacifica Foundation (hereinafter respondent) made an afternoon broadcast of a satiric monologue, entitled "Filthy Words," which listed and repeated a variety of colloquial uses of "words you couldn't say on the public airwaves." A father who heard the broadcast while driving with his young son complained to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which, after forwarding the complaint for comment to and receiving a response from respondent, issued a declaratory order granting the complaint. While not imposing formal sanctions, the FCC stated that the order would be

associated with the station's license file, and, in the event subsequent complaints are received, the Commission will then decide whether it should utilize any of the available sanctions it has been granted by Congress.

In its memorandum opinion, the FCC stated that it intended to "clarify the standards which will be utilized in considering" the growing number of complaints about indecent radio broadcasts, and it advanced several reasons for treating that type of speech differently from other forms of expression. The FCC found a power to regulate indecent broadcasting, inter alia, in 18 U.S.C. § 1464 (1976 ed.), which forbids the use of "any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communications." The FCC characterized the language of the monologue as "patently offensive," though not necessarily obscene, and expressed the opinion that it should be regulated by principles analogous to the law of nuisance, where the "law generally speaks to channeling behavior, rather than actually prohibiting it." The FCC found that certain words in the monologue depicted sexual and excretory activities in a particularly offensive manner, noted that they were broadcast in the early afternoon, "when children are undoubtedly in the audience," and concluded that the language, as broadcast, was indecent and prohibited by § 1464. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, one judge concluding that the FCC's action was invalid either on the ground that the order constituted censorship, [98 S.Ct. 3029] which was expressly forbidden by § 326 of the Communications Act of 1934, or on the ground that the FCC's opinion was the functional equivalent of

Page 727

a rule, and, as such, was "overbroad." Another judge, who felt that § 326's censorship provision did not apply to broadcasts forbidden by § 1464, concluded that § 1464, construed narrowly as it has to be, covers only language that is obscene or otherwise unprotected by the First Amendment. The third judge, dissenting, concluded that the FCC had correctly condemned the daytime broadcast as indecent. Respondent contends that the broadcast was not indecent within the meaning of the statute because of the absence of prurient appeal.

Held: The judgment is reversed. Pp. 734-741; 748-750; 761-762.

181 U.S.App.D.C. 132, 556 F.2d 9, reversed.

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I-III and IV-C, finding:

1. The FCC's order was an adjudication under 5 U.S.C. § 554(e) (1976 ed.), the character of which was not changed by the general statements in the memorandum opinion; nor did the FCC's action constitute rulemaking or the promulgation of regulations. Hence, the Court's review must focus on the FCC's determination that the monologue was indecent as broadcast. Pp. 734-735.

2. Section 326 does not limit the FCC's authority to sanction licensees who engage in obscene, indecent, or profane broadcasting. Though the censorship ban precludes editing proposed broadcasts in advance, the ban does not deny the FCC the power to review the content of completed broadcasts. Pp. 735-738.

3. The FCC was warranted in concluding that indecent language within the meaning of § 1464 was used in the challenged broadcast. The words "obscene, indecent, or profane" are in the disjunctive, implying that each has a separate meaning. Though prurient appeal is an element of "obscene," it is not an element of "indecent," which merely refers to conconformance with accepted standards of morality. Contrary to respondent's argument, this Court, in Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, has not foreclosed a reading of § 1464 that authorizes a proscription of "indecent" language that is not obscene, for the statute involved in that case, unlike § 1464, focused upon the prurient, and dealt primarily with printed matter in sealed envelopes mailed from one individual to another, whereas § 1464 deals with the content of public broadcasts. Pp. 738-741.

4. Of all forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited First Amendment protection. Among the reasons for specially treating indecent broadcasting is the uniquely pervasive presence that medium of expression occupies in the lives of our people. Broadcasts extend into the privacy of the home, and it is impossible completely to avoid

Page 728

those that are patently offensive. Broadcasting, moreover, is uniquely accessible to children. Pp. 747-750.

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, concluded in Part IV-A and IV-B:

1. The FCC's authority to proscribe this particular broadcast is not invalidated by the possibility that its construction of the statute may deter certain hypothetically protected broadcasts containing patently offensive references to sexual and excretory activities. Cf. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367. Pp. 742-743.

2. The First Amendment does not prohibit all governmental regulation that depends on the content of speech. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52. The content of respondent's broadcast, which was "vulgar," "offensive," and "shocking," is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection in all contexts; it is therefore necessary to evaluate [98 S.Ct. 3030] the FCC's action in light of the content of that broadcast. Pp. 744-748.

MR. JUSTICE POWELL, joined by MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concluded that the FCC's holding does not violate the First Amendment, though, being of the view that Members of this Court are not free generally to decide on the basis of its content which speech protected by the First Amendment is most valuable and therefore deserving of First Amendment protection, and which is less "valuable" and hence less deserving of protection, he is unable to join Part IV-B (or IV-A) of the opinion. Pp. 761-762.

STEVENS, J., announced the Court's judgment and delivered an opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I-III and IV-C, in which BURGER, C.J., and REHNQUIST, J., joined, and in all but Parts IV-A and IV-B of which BLACKMUN and POWELL, JJ., joined, and an opinion as to Parts IV-A and IV-B, in which BURGER, C.J., and REHNQUIST, J., joined. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which BLACKMUN, J., joined, post, p. 755. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 762. STEWART, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 777.

Page 729

STEVENS, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court (Parts I, II, III, and IV-C) and an opinion in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joined (Parts IV-A and IV-B).

This case requires that we decide whether the Federal Communications Commission has any power to regulate a radio broadcast that is indecent but not obscene.

A satiric humorist named George Carlin recorded a 12-minute monologue entitled "Filthy Words" before a live audience in a California theater. He began by referring to his thoughts about "the words you couldn't say on the public, ah, airwaves, um, the ones you definitely wouldn't say, ever." He proceeded to list those words and repeat them over and over again in a variety of colloquialisms. The transcript of the recording, which is appended to this opinion, indicates frequent laughter from the audience.

At about 2 o'clock in the afternoon on Tuesday, October 30, 1973, a New York radio station, owned by respondent Pacifica

Page 730

Foundation, broadcast the "Filthy Words" monologue. A few weeks later a man, who stated that he had heard the broadcast while driving with his young son, wrote a letter complaining to the Commission. He stated that, although he could perhaps understand the "record's being sold for private use, I certainly cannot understand the broadcast of same over the air that, supposedly, you control."

The complaint was forwarded to the station for comment. I n its response, Pacifica explained that the monologue had been played during a program about contemporary society's attitude toward language, and that, immediately before its broadcast, listeners had been advised that it included "sensitive language which might be regarded as offensive to some." Pacifica characterized George Carlin as "a significant social satirist" who,

like Twain and Sahl before him, examines the language of ordinary people. . . . Carlin is not mouthing obscenities, he is merely using words to satirize as harmless and essentially silly our attitudes towards those words.

Pacifica stated that it was not aware of any other complaints about the broadcast.

On February 21, 1975, the Commission issued a declaratory order granting the complaint and holding that Pacifica "could have been the subject of administrative sanctions." 56 F.C.C.2d 94, 99. The Commission did not impose formal sanctions, but it did state that the order would be

associated with the station's license file, and, in the event that subsequent complaints are received, the Commission will then...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
692 practice notes
  • 101 F.R.D. 472 (D.Del. 1984), C. A. 82-513 CMW, Amico v. New Castle County
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 3th Circuit District of Delaware
    • April 6, 1984
    ...to pornography is considerably broader than its power to regulate exposure of adults to pornography); Cf., FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978) (government's interest in shielding children from exposure to indecent language justifies restraint on b......
  • 514 F.Supp.2d 633 (D.N.J. 2007), C. A. 06-5765, DePinto v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 3th Circuit District of New Jersey
    • September 17, 2007
    ...minors from exposure to "sexually explicit" or "vulgar and offensive" speech. See FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978) (holding that the Federal Communications Commission properly considered George Carlin's "Filthy Words&qu......
  • 598 F.Supp. 1316 (S.D.Ind. 1984), IP 84-791, American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 7th Circuit Southern District of Indiana
    • November 19, 1984
    ...be applied in the present case. See New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 Defendants first a......
  • 638 F.2d 404 (2nd Cir. 1980), 619, Pico v. Board of Ed., Island Trees Union Free School Dist. No. 26
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • October 2, 1980
    ...dealing with the care of children by a government concerned with the "well-being of its youth." F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 749, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 3040, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978), quoting Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 640, 88 S.Ct. 1274, 1281, 20 L.Ed.2d 195 (1968......
  • Free signup to view additional results
501 cases
  • 101 F.R.D. 472 (D.Del. 1984), C. A. 82-513 CMW, Amico v. New Castle County
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 3th Circuit District of Delaware
    • April 6, 1984
    ...to pornography is considerably broader than its power to regulate exposure of adults to pornography); Cf., FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978) (government's interest in shielding children from exposure to indecent language justifies restraint on b......
  • 514 F.Supp.2d 633 (D.N.J. 2007), C. A. 06-5765, DePinto v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 3th Circuit District of New Jersey
    • September 17, 2007
    ...minors from exposure to "sexually explicit" or "vulgar and offensive" speech. See FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978) (holding that the Federal Communications Commission properly considered George Carlin's "Filthy Words&qu......
  • 598 F.Supp. 1316 (S.D.Ind. 1984), IP 84-791, American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 7th Circuit Southern District of Indiana
    • November 19, 1984
    ...be applied in the present case. See New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 Defendants first a......
  • 638 F.2d 404 (2nd Cir. 1980), 619, Pico v. Board of Ed., Island Trees Union Free School Dist. No. 26
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • October 2, 1980
    ...dealing with the care of children by a government concerned with the "well-being of its youth." F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 749, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 3040, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978), quoting Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 640, 88 S.Ct. 1274, 1281, 20 L.Ed.2d 195 (1968......
  • Free signup to view additional results
14 firm's commentaries
  • Petition For Writ of Certiorari
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • March 20, 2014
    ...FCC v. Nat’l Citizens Comm. for Broad., 436 U.S. 775 (1978) ................................................ 7 FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726 (1978) .............................................. 21 FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007) ..................................
  • FCC, Fox, And That Other F-Word
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 9, 2012
    ...in support of respondents in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/FCCvFox.pdf. 1 438 U.S. 726 (1978). 2 Fox Television Stations, Inc. v FCC, 613 F.3d 317, 326–27 (2d Cir. 2010) 3 See Tr. of Oral Arg. at 10–11, FCC v. Fox Television Stations......
  • FCC v Fox: The Supreme Court Finds Fleeting Indecency Standards Unconstitutionally Vague But Avoids First Amendment Issue
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • June 27, 2012
    ...and partial nudity, all the makings for an important case, but the Court declined the opportunity. In 1978 in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), the Court upheld the FCC's power to regulate the broadcast of patently offensive words. At issue was George Carlin's famous seven &q......
  • The Constitutionality of Criminalizing False Speech Made on Social Networking Sites in a Post-Alvarez, Social Media-Obsessed World
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • February 6, 2018
    ...with the notion that “the content on the 129. Id. at 24 (emphasis added). 130. Cohen, 403 U.S. at 25. But see FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726 (1978) ing that the FCC could restrict indecent language over broadcast radio). 131. Cohen, 403 U.S. at 25. 132. SMOLLA, supra note 125, at § 2:......
  • Free signup to view additional results
165 books & journal articles
5 provisions