Abc Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n

Citation613 F.3d 317
Decision Date13 July 2010
Docket NumberDocket Nos. 06-1760-ag, 06-2750-ag, 06-5358-ag.
PartiesFOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., CBS Broadcasting Inc., WLS Television, Inc., KTRK Television, Inc., KMBC Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc., ABC Inc., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, United States of America, Respondents, NBC Universal, Inc., NBC Telemundo License Co., NBC Television Affiliates, FBC Television Affiliates Association, CBS Television Network Affiliates, Center for the Creative Community, Inc., Doing Business as Center for Creative Voices in Media, Inc., ABC Television Affiliates Association, Intervenors.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC (R. Clark Wadlow, Jennifer Tatel, David S. Petron, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC; Ellen S. Agress, Maureen A. O'Connell, Fox Television Stations, Inc., New York, NY, on the brief), for petitioner Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Miguel Estrada, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C., (Susan Weiner, NBC Universal, Inc., on the brief), for intervenors NBC Universal Inc. and NBC Telemundo License Co.

Jacob Lewis, Associate General Counsel, for Austin C. Schlick, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. (Joseph R. Palmore, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC; Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas M. Bondy, Anne Murphy, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, on the brief), for respondents.

Robert Corn-Revere, Ronald G. London, Amber L. Husbands, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, DC; Jonathan H. Anschell, Susanna M. Lowy, CBS Broadcasting Inc., New York, NY, for petitioner CBS Broadcasting Inc.

Seth P. Waxman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC; John W. Zucker, ABC, Inc., New York, NY, for petitioners ABC, Inc., WLS Television, Inc., and KTRK Television, Inc.

Wade H. Hargrove, Mark J. Prak, David Kushner, Julia Ambrose, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Raleigh, NC, for intervenor ABC Television Affiliates Association.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Parul P. Desai, Matthew Wood, Media Access Project, Washington, DC, for intervenors Center for Creative Voices and Future of Music Coalition.

Michael R. Patrick, Renzulli Law Firm, White Plains, NY; Robert M. O'Neil, J. Joshua Wheeler, Eisha Jain, The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, for amici curiae The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and The Media Institute.

Nancy Winkelman, Timothy K. Lewis, Carl A. Solano, Mark Fowler, Jerald Fritz, Henry Geller, Newton N. Minow, James H. Quello, Glen O. Robinson, Kenneth G. Robinson, Jr., Schnader Harrrison Segal & Lewis LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for amici curiae former FCC Commissioners and Officials.

Christopher Hansen, Benjamin Sahl, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, for amici curiae American Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Directors Guild of America, First Amendment Project, Minnesota Public Radio/American Public Media, National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture, the National Coalition Against Censorship, National Federation of Community Broadcasters, PEN American Center, Screen Actors Guild, Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, Writers Guild of America, West, Writers Guild of America, East.

Steven H. Aden, Patrick A. Trueman, Alliance Defense Fund, Washington, DC; Joel B. Campbell, Law Offices of Richard J. Yrulegui, Fresno, CA, for amici curiae Focus on the Family and Family Research Council.

Robert W. Peters, Robin S. Whitehead, Morality in Media, Inc., New York, NY, for amicus curiae Morality in Media, Inc.

Robert R. Sparks, Jr., Christopher T. Craig, Sparks & Craig, LLP, McLean, VA, for amicus curiae Parents Television Council.

Thomas B. North, St. Ignace, MI, for amicus curiae Decency Enforcement Center for Television.

LEVAL, POOLER, and HALL, Circuit Judges.

POOLER, Circuit Judge:

This petition for review comes before us on remand from the Supreme Court. Previously we held, with Judge Leval dissenting, that the indecency policy of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). See Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 489 F.3d 444, 462 (2d Cir.2007). The Supreme Court reversed, upholding the policy under the APA and remanding for consideration of petitioners' constitutional arguments. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., --- U.S. ----, ----, 129 S.Ct. 1800, 1819, 173 L.Ed.2d 738 (2009) (Scalia, J.). We now hold that the FCC's policy violates the First Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here. Thus, we grant the petition for review and vacate the FCC's order and the indecency policy underlying it. 1

BACKGROUND

Section 1464 of Title 18 of United States Code provides that [w]hoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” In 1960, Congress authorized the FCC to impose civil forfeitures for violations of Section 1464. See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(D). It was not until 1975, however, that the FCC first exercised its authority to regulate speech it deemed indecent but not obscene. The speech at issue was comedian George Carlin's “Filthy Words” monologue, a 12-minute string of expletives broadcast on the radio at 2:00 in the afternoon.

The FCC brought forfeiture proceedings against the Pacifica Foundation, the broadcaster that had aired the Carlin monologue. CITIZEN'S COMPLAINT AGAINST PACIFICA FOUND. STATION WBAI (FM), N.Y, N.Y., 56 F.C.C.2d 94 (1975). In finding that Pacifica had violated Section 1464, the Commission defined “indecent” speech as “language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities and organs, at times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.” Id. at ¶ 11. Pacifica petitioned for review to the D.C. Circuit, which declared the FCC's indecency regime invalid. See Pacifica Found. v. FCC, 556 F.2d 9 (D.C.Cir.1977). In finding the FCC's order both vague and overbroad, the court pointed out that the Commission's definition of indecent speech would prohibit “the uncensored broadcast of many of the great works of literature including Shakespearian plays and contemporary plays which have won critical acclaim, the works of renowned classical and contemporary poets and writers, and passages from the Bible. Id. at 14. Such a result, the court concluded, amounted to unconstitutional censorship. Id. at 18.

In a plurality opinion authored by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court reversed. See FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978). The Court limited its review to the question of whether the FCC could impose a civil forfeiture for the Carlin monologue and declined to address Pacifica's argument that the regulation was overbroad and would chill protected speech. Id. at 734-35, 743 (“Invalidating any rule on the basis of its hypothetical application to situations not before the Court is ‘strong medicine’ to be applied ‘sparingly and only as a last resort.’ (quoting Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973))). In limiting its review, the Court stressed the “specific factual context” of the Carlin monologue, id. at 742, 98 S.Ct. 3026, focusing in particular on Carlin's deliberate and repetitive use of expletives to describe sexual and excretory activities.

The Court then went on to hold that the FCC could, at least in the situation before it, restrict indecent speech in the broadcast context that did not meet the legal definition of obscenity. Id. at 744, 98 S.Ct. 3026 (concluding that “if the government has any such power [to restrict indecent speech], this was an appropriate occasion for its exercise”). Resting on a nuisance rationale, the Court first noted that “of all forms of communication, it is broadcasting that has received the most limited First Amendment protection” because of its “uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans.” Id. at 748, 98 S.Ct. 3026. Moreover, the nature of broadcast television-as opposed to printed materials-made it “uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read.” Id. at 749, 98 S.Ct. 3026. The Court, however, “emphasize[d] the narrowness of [its] holding.” Id. at 750, 98 S.Ct. 3026. [N]uisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place,-like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard. We simply hold that when the Commission finds that a pig has entered the parlor, the exercise of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obscene.” Id. at 750-51, 98 S.Ct. 3026 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Justices Powell and Blackmun, who concurred in a separate opinion, also made clear that the FCC's regulatory authority was limited, stating that the Court's holding did not give the FCC “an unrestricted license to decide what speech, protected in other media, may be banned from the airwaves in order to protect unwilling adults from momentary exposure to it in their homes.” Id. at 759-60, 98 S.Ct. 3026 (Powell, J., concurring). Nor, they explained, did the holding “speak to cases involving the isolated use of a potentially offensive word in the course of a radio broadcast, as distinguished from the verbal shock treatment administered by respondent here.” Id. at 760-61, 98 S.Ct. 3026. Finally, they took the FCC at its word that it would “proceed cautiously,” which they reasoned...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • CBS Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • November 2, 2011
    ...most recent decision in Fox, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit endorsed this view, see Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 613 F.3d 317 (2d Cir.2010), and CBS encourages us to follow suit. In Fox, however, the constitutional question was the primary, if not exclusi......
  • Time Warner Cable Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • September 4, 2013
    ...statute prohibiting non-labor picketing and requiring examination of content was content based); see also Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 613 F.3d 317, 333 (2d Cir.2010) (expressing concern that vague standard would permit FCC to engage in “subjective, content-based decision-making”),......
  • Evergreen Ass'n, Inc. v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • January 17, 2014
    ...what will be considered [a PSC under the statute], then it can hardly expect [anyone else] to do so.” See Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 613 F.3d 317, 331 (2d Cir.2010), vacated on other grounds,––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2307, 183 L.Ed.2d 234 (2012).2 The majority's reliance on United......
  • Hayes v. State of New York Attorney Grievance Comm. of the Eighth Judicial Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 5, 2012
    ...cannot determine the meaning of a prohibition, those subject to it “can hardly [be] expect[ed] ... to do so,” Fox TV Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 613 F.3d 317, 331 (2d Cir.2010), cert. granted, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 3065, 180 L.Ed.2d 885 (2011). Several federal statutes that impose disclosure ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • 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
    ...the FCC's indecency policy unconstitutionally vague and invalidated the policy in its entirety. Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 613 F.3d 317, 327 (2d Cir. 2009). The Second Circuit recognized inconsistency in how the FCC had enforced its rule, concluding that the application of except......
  • FCC, Fox, And That Other F-Word
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 9, 2012
    ...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. 3 See Tr. of Oral Arg. at 10–11, FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2307 (2012) (No. 10-1293) (Jan. 10, 2012) ("Fox ......
5 books & journal articles
  • Newbs Lose, Experts Win: Video Games in the Supreme Court
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 95, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...the Second Circuit found the FCC's policy was unconstitutionally vague and had a chilling effect. Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 613 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 2010). This time, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Circuit, but only on the ground that the FCC violated the networks' due process......
  • The FCC in 2010: Seventy-Six Years of Obscenity, Indecency, and Inconsistency
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 39-3, May 2011
    • May 1, 2011
    ...at 460). 260Id. at 1819. 261Id. 262Id. (quoting FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S.726, 743 (1978)). 263Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 613 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 2010). 264Id. at 328. 265Id. at 327 (quoting Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470, 485 (2d Cir. 2006)). Page 647 2011] THE FCC IN 2010 6......
  • Examining the FCC's indecency regulations in light of today's technology.
    • United States
    • Federal Communications Law Journal Vol. 63 No. 1, December 2010
    • December 1, 2010
    ...(3.) FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726 (1978). (4.) FCC v. Fox TV Stations, 129 S. Ct. 1800 (2009). (5.) Fox TV Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 613 F.3d 317(2d Cir. (6.) cf. Brian J. Rooder, Broadcast Indecency Regulation in the Era of the "Wardrobe Malfunction": Has the FCC Grown Too Big for Its......
  • Mania: the Lives, Literature, and Law of the Beats Foreword
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 37-01, September 2013
    • Invalid date
    ...remanded sub. nom. Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 489 F.3d 444 (2d Cir. 2007), rev'd and remanded, 556 U.S. 502 (2009), on remand 613 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 2010), vacated and remanded, 132 S. Ct. 2307 (2012). 9. Pacifica, 438 U.S. at 761 (Powell, J., concurring). 10. Texas v. Johnson, 49......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT