TV Wants Clear Rules on What's a Bad Word

TV WANTS CLEAR RULES ON WHAT'S A BAD WORD
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times 4/30, AUTHOR: Jim Puzzanghera]
The legal battle that began this month between the four major networks and the Federal Communications Commission revolves around an I-word that is disturbing in its own way to TV executives: inconsistency. Why, they wonder, did the FCC allow the F-word and the S-word in the airing of Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan," but rule that the same words in the Martin Scorsese documentary, "The Blues: Godfathers and Sons," were indecent? Why did the FCC say in 2003 that the F-word was OK if used as an adjective, then several months later change course and say there was no acceptable grammatical construction? "At one time I could explain indecency to you in seven words," said Washington communications attorney John Crigler. "Now I need seven volumes." Frustrated by that growing complexity and confusion, the broadcast TV networks showed rare unity in filing notices of appeal April 14 alleging that a March 15 ruling by the FCC was unconstitutional. In so doing, networks executives knowingly embarked on what probably will be a long legal struggle. But their goal — bringing more clarity to what they describe as the increasingly blurry and outdated world of federal indecency rules — was key, several said, to assuring the continued viability of the broadcast TV business.
http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-decency30apr30,1,5446...
(requires registration)

MEDIA INSTITUTE BACKS INDECENCY CHALLENGE
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR:John Eggerton]
Gee, big surprise here... media company-backed think tank The Media Institute has come out in support of judicial review of the FCC's long-standing indecency policy. In response to the lawsuits brought by the major broadcast television networks and their affiliates's against the FCC over its indecency standards, specifically profanity, the institute said in a statement: "The FCC now finds itself locked in a battle with the television networks and their affiliates over a matter of program content: specifically, how to define the words and images that will be considered indecent or profane. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 1978 Pacifica radio case. Given the changes in social mores and technology that have occurred in the intervening span of almost three decades, however, this appears to be an opportune time for the courts to revisit this matter. The judiciary could: 1) define the scope of the FCC¹s authority to regulate content; 2) determine if the FCC should clarify its standards for television so that broadcasters can predict how the standards will be applied; (3) consider the impact of new technologies that permit parents to determine what their children can watch; and, most importantly, 4) evaluate the applicability of First Amendment protections."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6329420?display=Breaking+News