Facts: In 2002 and 2003, Cher and Nicole Richie cursed on the Billboard Music Awards that was broadcast live by Fox Television Stations. Since they were not bleeped, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sent notices to Fox for airing the profane language even though they had previously accepted that fleeting and isolated expletives did not violate indecency regime, arguing that previous decisions of this matter were only dicta and staff letters. Fox appealed against the FCC sanctions and this case went to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Issue: Is the FCC imposing liability on Fox Television Stations for both airings of fleeting expletives as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) even though they previously accepted profane language? …show more content…
According to the Administrative Procedure Act, FCC should have first relied in part on its precedent regarding APA to acquire a more substantial explanation for agency action to change its prior policy. Application: In deciding the case, the court believed that FCC did not violate the First Amendment but did fail to notify Fox of its constitutional right to be warned in advanced and give detail what the new policy prohibited. Since the FCC changed its policy after the show aired, the new policy cannot be applied to the previous broadcast of the Billboard Music
Swearing has the ability to get someone in a whole load of trouble at the dinner table with their mother but could also be their choice of words when they accidently stub their toe on the coffee table in the living room. Natalie Angier discusses this controversial topic of words that shouldn’t be said in her article feature in The New York Times, “Almost Before We Spoke, We Swore”. Provoked by a recently proposed bill to increase fines for using swear words on television, Angier analyzes not only the impact of swearing, but also where the desire to speak obscene words comes from. She references many credible studies and sources as she unfolds her argument. She uses a diverse slew of studies, experiments, and famous pieces of literature and
...wpoints. Such regulations were undoubtedly a form of prior restraint and consequently they were in direct violation of broadcasters First Amendment rights. As this was a unanimous decision, there are no records of dissenting views from the Justices. The only dissenting views were that of the Plaintiff, Red Lion Broadcasting Co.
"TV's Most Offensive Words | Media | MediaGuardian." Latest News, Comment and Reviews from the Guardian | Guardian.co.uk. 25 Nov. 2005. Web. Dec. 2010. .
The 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County was pivotal supporting company’s affirmative action plans. In this particular case, a woman, Diane Joyce, was promoted to a position at the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency over several men of equal qualifications. A male, Paul Johnson, received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC and filed suit that he was discriminated against for his sex and it violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Reasons/Analysis: Since certain materials have a high risk in being offensive, the Court decided that states
There are several flaws in this section of the Communications Decency Act that are due to the wording of the section itself. The entire section "patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards" is not defined enough to give a basis for people to be fined or imprisoned. What is offensive to the "contemporary community?
The first point I’d like to make is that profanity is far too prominent in the television and movies we watch and the music we listen to. Lyrics with “swear words” are no stronger, nor any more passionate than lyrics with other strong, emotionally charged words. Some may argue that a character who swears on television may be “properly portraying the average American usage of profanity,” but let me ...
Reno v. ACLU is the 1997 landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court providing sweeping free speech protection on the Internet. Understandably, commentators from legal and political spheres have discussed the case in terms of familiar First Amendment issues, including precedents from telecommunications law, the long-recognized exception to free speech for "obscenity," and concern for the exposure of children to inappropriate materials.
The First Amendment protects the right of freedom of speech, which gradually merges into the modern perspective of the public throughout the history and present. The restriction over the cable TV and broadcast media subjected by the Federal Communications Commission violates the freedom of speech, irritating the dissatisfied public by controlling over what can be said on the air. Should the FCC interfere with the free speech of media? The discretion of content being presented to the public should not be completely determined by the FCC, but the public in its entirety which enforces a self-regulation with freedom and justice, upholding and emphasizing the freedom of speech by abolishing the hindrance the FCC brought.
The traditionalist approach to free speech protection is centered on core values and yields results that are basically neutral so that content allowed through one communication medium is permissible in all media.Freedom of speech and of the press is a basic tenant of United States constitutional law. Perhaps concern for the English use of prior restraint (licensing of press) and seditious libel was the reason for including the first amendment in our bill of rights. When the first amendment became law the printed page was the most widely used non-verbal medium of speech. Speech, as we understand it, involves more than verbal communication. Speecht includes pictures, movies, radio, television and expressive conduct [Shelton v. Tucker, 364 US 479 (1960)].
On October 23, the trading day immediately following Skechers earnings report, the stock was down almost 32%, S&P 500 up 1%. The spiral dive in stock price was probably due to investors overreacting to one bad day, news or press release, or the investors did not trust Skechers’ management, which reflects the market losing faith in the brand. Hence, the unpredictable dive affects the informational inefficiency of the stock market that takes short or long time to adjust quickly and fully to any new or surprising information. R2. Search the internet to understand Regulation FD. Does Reg FD have any bearing on post earnings price moves such as the one exhibited by Skechers in our example? If so, why? If not, why not.
The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) properly outlines the process that agencies must follow when wanting to write a regulation. Through the APA there are two types of rulemaking; formal and informal. The differences between the two are that informal rulemaking is the most common process used by agencies for writing regulation. The agency first proposes a rule or standard and invites public comment through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Formal rulemaking is used by agencies responsible for economic regulation of industries and is only required when a statute other than the APA specifically states that rulemaking is to be done on record.
Zelezny, J. (2011). Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints, and the Modern Media. Boston, MA: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning.
According to Jay and Janschewitz (2008), “The ratings demonstrated that appropriateness of swearing is highly contextually variable, dependent on speaker-listener relationship, social-physical context and particular word used” (pg.1). The consensus of this study was that swearing has to do more than just utterance of profanity, its complexity disintegrates into its neurological, psychological, sociocultural and pragmatic factors.
Throughout the day, I find myself exposed to harsh language. Whether in at work or walking through the hallways at school, it is all around us. Later, as I accelerate through rush-hour traffic, I discover that I use these words as well, lashing out with blunt verbal terms in the safety of my enclosed vehicle. I have used bad language before, but I do use it often. I have friends that cuss every other word. However, I do not care for it much. It is not so much offensive, just bothersome. Whether your daily vocabulary consists of several cuss words or it is just the occasional “shit” in a fit of anger or pain, everyone is guilty of it. Who hasn’t accidentally let a word slip when they slam their finger in a door or stub their toe on the coffee table? Is this impressive, of course not. There used to be a day that when you said “shit” in public, it was like exploding a bomb in public; people would fall silent, staring at you with half-angry open mouths. Mothers would clap their hands over their children’s ears and push them away from you; desperately trying to keep their kids form such language. But today, we’ve fallen. Sure there are still a few people that cringe at the sound of vulgar language, but not many. In the 1970’s, George Carlin delivered a monologue citing seven words that you could never say on network television. Now, these words are being used regularly on network television. You could say that swear words have lost their impact, or, you could argue that our language has become downright coarse, offensive, and rude.