FCC, CBS Continue To Battle Over Janet Jackson Reveal
Third Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing its earlier decision on FCC's fine of CBS
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 12/27/2010 9:22:46 AM
The FCC, backed by the Justice Department, says that broadcasters give up full First Amendment status when they get a government license, and so should be subject to government regulation of swearing and nudity when kids could be watching.That was the gist of the FCC's supplemental brief to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is reviewing its earlier decision that the FCC's $550,000 fine of CBS for Janet Jackson's partially exposed breast on the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show broadcast was arbitrary and capricious.
The Third Circuit had sought input on whether, if CBS was found to have knowledge of the "reveal," the FCC should be applying the criminal or civil recklessness standard. The FCC argues it should be the latter, which would mean CBS could be culpable even if it was not aware of what Jackson and Justin Timberlake were going to do, so long as it should have been aware. The criminal recklessness standard applies only if CBS had been aware of the risk and chose to disregard it.
CBS argued that the First Amendment implications of content regulations on speech requires a heightened scrutiny comparable to the criminal liability standard, but the FCC said no. "Although broadcasters engage in speech, they are not like other speakers. A broadcast licensee is ‘granted the free and exclusive use of a limited and valuable part of the public domain,' in exchange for which it agrees to be ‘burdened by enforceable public obligations,' including the obligation not to broadcast indecent material," the commission said, quoting language from previous court decisions.
As a fallback, the FCC said that if the court did not agree with its interpretation, it should remand the decision back to the commission. It has already asked the court to do so, saying it wanted to do more investigating to establish that CBS's violation was willful.
"CBS neither knew of nor approved the broadcast involving the material at issue. Consequently, the Court should vacate the forfeiture," CBS said in its filing last week. But it argued that the FCC's fine must be thrown out whether or not the standard is criminal or civil recklessness.
CBS wants the court to vacate the fine, but if it does not, it says the court should consider the Constitutional questions. "The Court should thus address the First Amendment issues raised by the forfeiture, particularly in light of the FCC's zeal to prolong its investigation on remand," said CBS.
The Supreme Court is expected to eventually have to weigh in on the FCC's indecency enforcement regime, given its decision to overturn a lower court's ruling, in the Fox case, that the FCC's fleeting profanity enforcement was arbitrary and capricious. The court then remanded the Third Circuit's similar finding against the FCC's indecency fine of CBS for fleeting nudity.
It is that court's review that occasioned the request for more info on the standard of recklessness.
Talkback
-
Once again people....They are still trying to sue Janet and not Justin. First off it was his song, and he was the one who ripped it off. I didn't find it no more offensive than when Lil Kim wore a purple dress with a paistry around it.
Where is Justin now??? Having a good time not having to deal with the drama. Just let janet take the blame me and my "boyz" got things to do. Ahhhh the joys of being white. You guys sure will protect each other, even when you are wron
tobbie - 12/30/2010 12:21:45 PM EST -
It was an act of violence against women. Mr. Timberlake, if he didn't know better, he still should be doing time at women's shelters. A few hundred hours at least, not just fined. The FCC needs to be fined hours as well.
Paula Hollywood - 12/28/2010 6:59:58 PM EST -
Folks, you are missing the most hysterical part of the story. Read the FCC brief, specifically the reference to a incident on a station in San Francisco airing a live interview with a couple of performers from a stage show called "Puppetry of the P*nis." One of the "stars" accidentally ended up on air. I would have love to have heard some of the discussions at that station before, during and after that incident. I credit John Eggerton for not mentioning it in his article, I don't think I could have let it pass without some comment.
Bill Hayes - 12/28/2010 3:17:12 PM EST -
Folks, you are missing the most hysterical part of the story. Read the FCC brief, specifically the reference to a incident on a station in San Francisco airing a live interview with a couple of performers from a stage show called "Puppetry of the P*nis." One of the "stars" accidentally ended up on air. I would have love to have heard some of the discussions at that station before, during and after that incident. I credit John Eggerton for not mentioning it in his article, I don't think I could have let it pass without some comment.
Bill Hayes - 12/28/2010 3:17:11 PM EST -
At least this is keeping the economy stimulated, as in keeping some lawyers rich. No other purpose since most (if any) offended children are now adults. They will drag it out another 7 years or more. Ridiculous.
Shy Stir - 12/28/2010 1:46:18 PM EST
No related content found.
Most Popular Pages
-
No Top Articles



















