Supreme Court to review FCC role as TV’s curse-words and nudity police

The Supreme Court said that it will rule on the Federal Communications Commission’s ability to police the nation’s airwaves for indecencies.

The Justices said they will review a decision by the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that put the FCC’s role as indecency watchdog in jeopardy. That appeals court found that the FCC went beyond its duties when it fined ABC for a 2003 episode of “NYPD Blue” that showed a woman’s naked backside. It also fined Fox around the same time for curse words uttered by Cher and Nicole Richie during live awards shows. The FCC has fought for its ability to enforce broadcast indecency rules, which can impose up to $325,000 in fines per violation. Broadcasters have opposed strengthened rules, saying they violate the First Amendment. “We are pleased the Supreme Court will review the lower court rulings that blocked the FCC’s broadcast indecency policy,” the FCC said in a statement. “We are hopeful that the Court will affirm the Commission’s exercise of its statutory responsibility to protect children and families from indecent broadcast programming.” The Supreme Court said it will begin hearing oral arguments in the case this fall.

Broadcasting & Cable reports that the Federal Communications Commission and Parents Television Council were understandably pleased that the Supreme Court had agreed to decide whether a lower court was right to rule the FCC's indecency enforcement regime unconstitutionally vague and chilling. The National Association of Broadcasters said it supported a congressional review, but that broadcasters would continue to program responsibly, while Media Access Project was pleased the review was confined to indecency and not broader regulation.

The Court will now set up a briefing and argument schedule. Look for briefs to be submitted by the end of the summer or early fall, with an argument date following several weeks later. It’s reasonably likely that the argument will be held before the end of the year, although the Court might not issue its ruling until June, 2012, CommLawBlog speculates.