FCC vs Fox Television Stations research

Fox Television Stations, Inc. , 556 U. S. 502 (2009) was decided by the USA Supreme Court. The court upheld the FCC’s regulations. The decision was written by Judge Anthony Kennedy. This paper seeks to address both cases, their backgrounds arguments for and against the issue, the primary stakeholders and personal opinions on the actions taken. Background From the time of Pacifica, Federal Communications Commission did not sanction the broadcasters for the airing of words which were not decent unless they were repetitive and completely deliberate. Bon, on receiving the Golden Globe Award, claimed that “it was really, really fucking brilliant. ” In response to these complaints, the FCC made a decision in 2004 that this type of non-sexual application of vulgarity is considered indecent. However, the Commission declined to impose a penalty again.

The new FCC policy was challenged by Fox all over again in the federal court of appeals. The Fox Company argued that this policy was in direct violation of both the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal made a decision that the policy changes of FCC violated the APA act. This case was taken to the Supreme Court by the FCC. According to Justice Scalia, there were some propositions which scanty empirical proof could be marshaled and one of the effects is its associated harmful effects to children. The programming with indecent expletives of one word has the tendency of producing children who make use of these words. It is enough knowing that children copy the behaviors which they observe.

Given the fact that the court of appeals did not make a decision on the violation of the FCC policy over the First Amendment, this question was also declined by the Supreme Court (Corn-Revere, 2008). The Supreme Court claimed that saying the policy was in direct violation of the constitution would be determined soon enough. He claimed that Pacifica represented a narrow decision and the previous policy of FCC punished only the repetitive and deliberate indecent language (Barton, 1976). Justice Breyer also dissented. In his opinion, the FCC had failed in providing explanations of the reasons for the changes in policy. Justice Breyer pointed to the fact that the previous policy was not in use for 25 years. Yet, the Commission did not observe that the broadcasters frequently aired expletives in the due procedure.

The Pacifica was well interpreted by the court as not in support of the present policy of the FCC. This is because the policy has changed a big deal since the decision in the Pacifica. The new policy of the Commission imposed significant monetary fines for the application of an expletive. The court pointed towards many inconsistencies, and it made the final decision that the FCC was unable to justify the implementation of the indiscernible standard. A law is considered permissibly vague when it does not provide the person of ordinary intelligence the reasonable opportunity of knowing what is not allowed (Jones, 2018). The Court claimed it was not necessarily addressing the important issue of First Amendment. The opinion of Justice Kennedy left all stakeholders in the dark on whether the Commission could continue enforcing its policy.

The major stakeholders in the case were the advertisers, listeners, viewers and the FCC. Justice Ginsburg gave his decision arguing that the Pacifica was wrong from the start. He also argued that the technological advances, the untenable rulings of the Commission and time showed the unconstitutionality of the policy itself. The remaining justices addressed the use of this word, which was fundamental to the majority opinion. The Second Circuit only points to the claims of the broadcasters desiring to know the degree of certainty about the elements of the policy for compliance purposes. The issue before the court could relate to administrative law. However, it is clear that Justice Scalia was largely influenced by the words involved. He did not hide his interest towards the endorsement of the new policy of FCC.

The second case in 2012 was a continuation of the first case in 2009. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal made a decision that the policy changes of FCC violated the APA act. According to Justice Scalia, there were some propositions which scanty empirical proof could be marshalled and one of the effects is its associated harmful effects to children. Justice Stevens claimed that the majority misread the Pacific which he had himself written. The Pacifica’s content did not allow the treating of an isolated expletive as indecent by FCC. Fed. Comm. BJ, 23, 75. Calvert, C. , Minchin, M. The federal communications commission. The Journal of Law and Economics, 56(4), 879-915. Corn-Revere, R. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Rev. Eaton, J. The Administrative Procedure Act and How the Final Rule Designation Allows Agencies to Perpetuate Harm by Failing to Act.