Kane 1

FCC v. Fox Television

Introduction: In the case of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) versus Fox Television, the main issue concerns whether a broadcast using a single fleeting expletive is or is not considered indecent. Even though the FCC has not announced this standard as indecent before, this independent agency of the United States Government initiated enforcement against Fox Television Stations. The decision was based on incidents at the Golden Globe Awards and Billboard Music Awards, both aired by Fox, that showed celebrities using the curse words fuck and shit over a live broadcast witnessed by millions of viewers. Having been in and out of the Supreme Court of the Second Circuit from 2003 to 2010, this case was finally delivered a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals on July 13, 2010. Many elements are involved when determining whether indecent or obscene material has been broadcast, such as background of the case, laws and regulations concerning the constitution, prior cases that affect the specific topic at hand, and the ruling of the court.

Background of FCC: The FCC regulates many aspects of electronic communication, including radio, television, and telecommunications (i.e. satellite and cable). In 1948, The FCC began regulating broadcast speech when 18 U.S.C. 1464 was incorporated into the criminal code (Hiserman). The Department of Justice originally enforced the statute, but then turned it over to the FCC, which probably had to do with not wanting to be associated of criminalizing the use of language (Barron). The 1464 code states, Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by

Kane 2 means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both (Hiserman). In 1960, with the approval of Congress, the FCC was granted access to enforce 18 U.S.C. 1464 (Barron). This allowed the FCC to regulate indecent speech and has forever changed the leeway of broadcasting. Secondly, Congress enacted the Administrative Policy Act (APA) to impose procedural controls on the newly empowered federal agencies such as the FCC. These agencies had new powers delegated to them by Congress, and many had begun to worry about bureaucratic tyranny or basically a take over by the agencies. Congress enacted the APA to ensure that the agencies did the work it asked them to do and stayed within the parameters that it set. Congress pulled the judiciary into APA enforcement because lawmakers lack the resources to effectively monitor compliance with the APA. Though Congress gave the judiciary some power to watch over the agencies, it limited the scope of the judiciarys power to review agency actions, in part because the judiciary had thwarted early congressional efforts to empower federal agencies. Under the APA, courts can stop agencies from stepping out of bounds of violating a rule of procedure, but they cannot prevent agencies from replacing a high-quality policy with a moderately functional one (Coleman). Fundamentally, agencies like the FCC have the power to change their policies, but they need to be high quality changes that can be explained by the agency for the purpose. Lastly, it is important to know that the courts regulate the rules that the agencies must follow, but the courts do not have the authority to establish the rules. It was not until 1975 when the FCC actually used the authority given to them from the Communications Act Amendments of 1960 to regulate speech that was considered to be indecent (Hiserman). The first indecent broadcast by the FCC was against the Pacifica Foundation, which aired George Carlins Filthy Words monologue. The problem was that Carlin, a comedian,

Kane 3 intentionally and constantly repeated several expletives (Hiserman). In the case of the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, indecent speech was the issue. Carlin violated a policy launched in 1970, which was gratuitous and repeated use of two dirty words (Barron). With this in mind, the FCC implied that Carlins broadcast broke the rule. On Pacificas petition for review, the U.S. court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that, the definition was vague and overly broad, and implied that the FCCs policy could lead to censorship of constitutionally protected speech (Hiserman). The FCC appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court summarized the actual facts of the case by writing, a father driving with his son at two oclock on an October afternoon in 1973 turned on the radio. He then heard George Carlin reciting the seven most commonly used swear words in English. Carlin recited the words over and over again with expanding the two dirty words to seven (Barron). The young boys father complained to the FCC and decided if they received anymore complaints about the broadcast then the FCC would use the Communications Act against Pacifica (Barron). The Commissions did in fact use the Act against Carlin and his dirty words. The Supreme Courts verdict was different than before, which ruled that the FCC could impose a fine due to the Communications Act (Hiserman). The Court did not think the First Amendment act was violated and ultimately decided to distinguished broadcast media from other forms of communication. First, the Court noted that broadcast media should receive limited First Amendment protection because, unlike other forms of communication, broadcast media have a pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans (Hiserman). Second, the nature of broadcast television made it uniquely accessible to children, even those who could not yet read (Hiserman).

Kane 4 After FCC v. Pacifica, the FCCs policy was to apply its regulations only against broadcasters using the seven specific words in the Carlin monologue, which they declared indecent (Hiserman). However, in 1987 the agency realized that this policy was no longer able to work, even though it was easy to regulate (Hiserman). Their only authority involved were those seven curse words, which would not utilize the maximum authority that they have. They needed something more substantial, so they discarded the dirty words policy (Hiserman). Instead, in 2001 the new policy was put into place. Language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities and organs, at times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience (Hiserman). However, none of the statements from the agencies new policy suggest or discuss the issue of fleeting use of expletives.

Obscene v. Indecent: In order to truly understand the cases that consist of fleeting expletives one must comprehend the difference between obscene and indecent. Especially, when they are related in legal terms. It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or profane programming during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts. Among other things, the FCC has authority to issue civil monetary penalties, revoke a license, and deny a renewal application. In addition, a federal district court may impose fines and/or imprisonment for up to two years on those who are convicted of criminal violations of the law (Obscenity, Indecency and Profanity). Obscene material is different from indecent material in the fact that the First

Kane 5 Amendment to the Constitution does not protect it and it cannot be broadcast at any time. There are three measures that make material obscene. First, an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. Second, the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law. Third, the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value (Obscenity, Indecency, and Profanity). Indecency has been defined as language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities (Obscenity, Indecency, and Profanity). The difference between the two is that indecent material is not as offensive as obscenity. Also, the First Amendment protects indecent material, but it can be regulated at certain hours of the day in order to protect children (Obscenity, Indecency, and Profanity). Furthermore, profanity in relation to indecency and obscenity is that it ties in with indecency but it is more of a nuisance to the public than being just offensive.

FCC v. Fox Television: Fox Television is one of the most popular broadcasting companies in America. In 2002 and 2003, Fox Television broadcasted the Billboard Music Awards, an annual award show that honors the top-selling musicians in multiple genres (Oyez). While the broadcasts were on air, several expletives were used by public figures including musicians and presenters (Oyez). In 2002, during her acceptance speech at the award show, the singer Cher said, Ive had unbelievable support in my life, and Ive worked really hard. Ive had great people to work with. Oh, yeah, you know what? Ive also had critics for the last 40 years saying that I was on

Kane 6 my way out every year. Right. So fuck em. I still have a job and they dont ("Obscenity, Indecency and The Law"). In addition, Nicole Richie in a broadcast conversation with Paris Hilton about their show The Simple Life used two expletives (Perrier and White). The conversation between them was: Paris Hilton: Now, Nicole, remember, this is a live show, watch the bad language. Nicole Richie: Okay, God. Paris Hilton: It feels so good to be standing here tonight. Nicole Richie: Yeah, instead of standing in mud and [audio blocked]. Why do they even call it The Simple Life? Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? Its not so fucking simple (FCC v. Fox TV, 2009). This type of language also took place at the Golden Globe Awards in 2003 when the internationally known singer Bono took the stage (Perrier and White). Bono said, This is really, really fucking brilliant. Really, really great when he received his award (Perrier and White). The FCC, although previously stated that such speech fleeting expletives did not violate their code of conduct, now insisted that the behavior and actions for broadcasting it was indecent and profane (Oyez). Thus, changing its old policy by creating a new one. However, the broadcasters were not aware of the new policy. The broadcasts fell within the subject-matter scope of the Commissions indecency test because the 2003 broadcast involved a literal description of excrement and both broadcasts involved the F-Word, which essentially has a sexual connotation. The next order determined that the broadcasts were offensive under the community standards for the specific medium. It also noted that both broadcasts involved the use of one of the most vulgar, graphic, and explicit words for sexual activity in the English language. It found Ms. Richies use of the F-Word and her explicit description of the handling of excrement to

Kane 7 be vulgar and shocking, as well as to constitute pandering, even after Ms. Hilton had playfully warned her to watch the bad language. It found Chers statement patently offensive because she suggested a sexual act as a means of expressing hostile feelings to her critics. The order relied upon the critically important context of the remarks, noting that they were aired during prime-time awards shows designed to draw a large nationwide audience that could be expected to include many children interested in seeing their favorite music stars, Indeed, approximately 2.5 million minors witnessed each of the broadcasts (FCC v. Fox TV, 2009). In this case, the FCC received numerous complaints by parents whose children were exposed to the fleeting expletives and were concerned for their childs well being (FCC v. Fox TV, 2009). The material received an abundant amount of criticisms, according to the FCCs complaints regarding various television broadcast between 2002 and 2005, the Commission concludes that the broadcast was offensive under contemporary community standards for a broadcast medium (Notices of Apparent Liability). Furthermore, do to technological advances the FCC expresses that Fox could have delayed the program for a period of time so the broadcast could be censored for the audiences (Notices of Apparent Liability). Even with the advice of the Commissions, it did not stop the agency from releasing notices that the broadcasters violated the policy of indecency. On March 15, 2006, the Commission released Notices of apparent Liability for a number of broadcasters, including Fox, that the FCC believed to be actionably indecent (FCC v. Fox TV, 2009). Two of the broadcasts consisted of the Golden Globe Awards and the Billboard Music Awards. Broadcasters affected by the Notices petitioned the Second Circuit for review and argued the new policy on both constitutional and statutory grounds (Barron). However, the FCC had not previously given the broadcasters or the affected parties the opportunity to respond to the

Kane 8 charges that were placed upon them (Barron). This type of opportunity had not been presented because it had not imposed the sanctions since it was a new policy and also a reversal of policy (Barron). The petitioners argued that the FCCs guidelines were so vague that they as broadcasters could not possibly determine what would be deemed indecent by the FCC. In response, the FCC argued that its policy and subsequent decisions provided sufficient notice as to what would be considered indecent (Hiserman). The Commission then issued an order on remand upholding its findings that the broadcasts were indecent. A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit held, per Jude Pooler, two-to-one, that the FCCs reversal of its fleeting expletives policy was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The panel also stated that he FCC had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for now holding that fleeting expletives could be actionable when it had specifically ruled in the past that they were not subject to sanction (Barron). However, in the final part of the panels opinion, the Second Circuit stated, it had refrained from ruling on the constitutional challenges presented by the petitioners (Barron). But at the same time, the panel observed that it was skeptical that the FCC could provide a reasoned explanation for its fleeting expletives regime that could nevertheless provide the requisite clarity to withstand constitutional scrutiny. The panel said it was sympathetic to the contention of the networks that the FCCs indecency test was undefined, indiscernible, inconsistent, and consequently, unconstitutionally vague (Barron). In other terms, the Second Circuit judges were understanding of the networks petitions of the FCCs notices of fleeting expletives that were aired. Also, that the FCCs new policy would not hold up against the First Amendment because the reasoning behind the Commissions allegations were unclear. Courts usually shy away from making constitutional determinations if they do not have to for the same reasons that you do not undergo brain surgery if your problem can be

Kane 9 effectively treated with less invasive and dangerous methods (Cole). This relates to the fact that the constitution, including the First Amendment, should not be tampered with. However, the FCC petitioned the Second Circuits decision of the new policy being too vague and the case was sent to the Supreme Court of appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals recognized that the Commission had adopted a contextual approach to indecency, rather than a rigid rule prohibiting specified words, in part because the Commission recognized that an outright ban on certain words would raise grave First Amendment concerns. The FCC was ultimately trying to avoid diminishing the First Amendment. The court also acknowledged that because the English language is rife with creative ways of depicting sexual or excretory organs or activities even if the FCC were able to provide a complete list of all such expressions, new offensive and indecent words are invented every day. In the courts opinion, the flexibility provided by the Commissions post-1987 policy results in a standard that even the FCC cannot articulate or apply consistently, which resulted with the court of appeals striking down the FCCs indecency policy in its entirety (FCC v. Fox TV, 2011). The court expressed that, in their opinion, they do not believe that the FCC actually has a sufficient answer in regards to the new policy, which results as being too vague. The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuits ruling, stating that the Commissions fleeting expletives policy was not arbitrary and capricious. Further, like the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court did not reach the constitutional issues in the case, noting that it would go against normal procedures to address such issues without a lower court opinion. With this in mind, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit to determine whether the FCCs indecent speech policy violated the First Amendment. On remand, the Second Circuit focused primarily on the constitutionality of the FCCs indecency guidelines. The court ultimately

Kane 10 determined that the guidelines had a chilling effect on speech and struck down the guidelines as unconstitutionally vague (Hiserman). The ruling of the Second Circuit also laid the groundwork for the Supreme Court to overturn its precedent set in the 1978 case FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. In Pacifica, the Supreme Court distinguished broadcast television from other forms of media due to its uniquely pervasive presence in that time period. Broadcast television today does not have the presence that it did in 1975, which makes the broadcast not as influential. At the time of Pacifica, cable television was a new innovation and was just starting to become popular. However, presently approximately 98.5 million households subscribe to a cable or satellite service and, for those households; the distinction between broadcast and non-broadcast channels is irrelevant. Furthermore, social networking sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and MySpace have become relatively prevalent, allowing access to videos, movies, and broadcast television programs with a simple click of a button and at faster speeds than ever. High speed Internet, Web 2.0, and social networking sites were still decades from existence at the time of Pacifica (Hiserman). The Supreme Court also distinguished broadcast television from other forms of media due to its unique accessibility to children. With todays technology; however, there are ways to shield children from broadcast television programs containing indecent speech. As the Court observed in Fox, every television sold in the United States since 2000 that is thirteen inches of longer contains a v-chip (Hiserman). The v-chip enables parents to restrict what their children watch based on a content rating (e.g. TV-PG, TV-14, TV-MA) and this device is installed in every digital-converter box for those who receive their signal over the airwaves (Yin). One case where the device played a key role in the Supreme Courts decision was United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group in 2000. The Court suggested that the targeted blocking technology,

Kane 11 including the v-chip, allows parents to monitor what children watch without affecting the First Amendment interests of audiences wanting to listen or watch (Hiserman). In relation to the FCC v. Fox TV case, parents can now monitor what is available for their kids to watch; thereby negating the concern that broadcast television is uniquely accessible to children. As a result of the changing media landscape, the concern about broadcast televisions unique presence in the home seems to be outdated and irrelevant, thereby making it time for the Supreme Court to reconsider the precedent set in Pacifica (Hiserman). Basically, with the rise of technology and media within society, it is essential that the precedent be removed or reconsidered. Also, this led to a major APA shift that was brought on by the FCC and changed the outcome of the case. The APA requires that the actions of federal agencies, including the FCC, not be arbitrary or capricious. More than 25 years ago, the Supreme Court interpreted that requirement, holding that an agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for actions it takes. Since then, numerous court appeals have read that standard, in the context of changes in agency policy, to require that the agency also explain why the reasons underlying its original policy are no longer dispositive and why the new policy is preferable to the policy being abandoned (Cole). The FCC needed a reason to change their old policy to their preferred new one. But they could not declare a solid answer that would satisfy the Administrative Policy Act, which led to the courts ruling in favor of Fox. Similar case: A similar case to the FCC v. Fox Television would be the extremely controversial accident at the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. This Super Bowl was the most watched Super Bowl up to that time and was the highest rated program of the 2003-2004 television season among children and adults (FCC v. CBS, 2010). During the show singers Janet Jackson and

Kane 12 Justin Timberlake performed a duet entitled Rock Your Body and Timberlake repeatedly grabbed Jackson and rubbed against her in a sexually suggestive manner. At the end of the song, while singing gonna have you naked by the end of this song, Timberlake pulled off the right portion of Jacksons bustier, exposing her breast to the television audience (FCC v. CBS, 2010). The halftime show was produced by MTV Networks and was aired live by many stations owned by CBS (FCC v. CBS, 2010). This wardrobe malfunction reached millions of audiences that included children and adults that were not pleased with the performance. After the incident, CBS issued a statement that expressed in detail their apologies and regret. Furthermore, stating that everyone at CBS and MTV were shocked, appalled, and the material went far beyond what is acceptable standards for the broadcast network (FCC v. CBS, 2010). With this, the FCC received numerous complaints about the broadcast and the Commission ultimately issued a notice of apparent liability and a total forfeiture of $550,000 for violating the federal restrictions on broadcast indecency (FCC v. CBS, 2010). The Commission concluded that, a scene showing nude sexual organs is graphic and explicit if the nudity is readily discernible and it was clearly identifiable to the viewer (FCC v. CBS, 2010). Another reason for the notice of liability was that there was no notice given to the audience about the ripping of the clothing that exposed the breast especially since the Super Bowl is aimed for family entertainment purposes (FCC v. CBS, 2010). CBS filed a petition for reconsideration and the court of appeals held that the Commissions order was invalid under the APA on the grounds that it constituted and unexplained departure from the original policy that isolated of fleeting material did not fall with the scope of actionable indecency (FCC v. CBS, 2010). Furthermore, the court rejected the FCCs reason that its original policy had made clear to broadcasters that even relatively fleeting

Kane 13 references may be found indecent where other factors contribute to finding of patent offensiveness (FCC v. CBS, 2010). Also, the court suggested that images and words would be considered the same in this case. The court of appeals questioned that the Commissions finding that CBS had the requisite mental state to be liable for Jackson and Timberlakes performance during the halftime show. The court stated that liability could not be premised on a respondeat superior theory because Jackson and Timberlake were independent contractors rather than employees of CBS (FCC v. CBS, 2010). With this in mind, CBS is at no fault because the entire situation was out of their hands. The FCCs new policy was not formally brought to the attention of the broadcasters and the APA, which means that it cannot apply to this case. This case is similar to FCC v. Fox TV because it involves the interpretation of what truly is indecent and obscene in the eyes of the FCC and the legal system. The fact that the Commission changed its policy from isolated fleeting material would not be penalized as indecency to transforming it by insisting, relatively fleeting material can be found indecent causes the court to side with the broadcasters. In order for the FCC to actually regulate this new policy the Commission needs to formally change it for the APA to reach the broadcasters awareness of the change. Outcome of FCC v. Fox TV: There were many opinions and outcomes within the FCC v. Fox TV case, including the Supreme Courts final judgments. The Supreme Court held that the FCCs order was neither arbitrary nor capricious (Oyez). Justice Antonin G. Scalia announced the ruling of the court in which many others shared the decision including Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito. Their reasoning behind the

Kane 14 decision was that the FCC did not need to prove that its change in policy is better or higher quality than its prior stance. Rather, the FCC needed to prove that its new policy is permissible and that there are good reasons for it (Oyez). Justice Thomas wrote separately, concurring. Justice Kennedy also wrote separately, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. He argued that when the FCC changes policy, such that it reverses its own precedent, it should explain why. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. He argued that the FCC need explain why it changed its policy and disagreed that the word "indecent" allowed the FCC to punish the broadcast of "any" expletive that has a "sexual or excretory origin." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented. She noted, that while the First Amendment issues surrounding the case were not addressed, they "cast a shadow", and the Court should be mindful that words "unpalatable to some may be commonplace for others." Lastly, Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented and was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. He argued that the FCC failed to adequately explain why it changed its policy (Oyez). With this final decision, on July 13, 2010 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the Federal Communications Commissions indecent speech policy as unconstitutionally vague towards the case of Fox Television Stations. This win for Fox and other broadcasters created a sigh of relief that the FCCs policy could not suppress their constitutionally protected speech (Hiserman). This particular case has been in and out of the Supreme Court of the Second Circuit from 2003 to 2010 and is an important issue in the development of the First Amendment speech law. Not only has this case made the FCC rethink the agencies policy regarding indecent speech, it has set the stage for the Supreme Court to rethink the precedent in the Pacifica case due to the rise of media landscape.

Kane 15 Bibliography Barron, Jerome A. "FCC v. Fox Television Stations and the FCC's New Fleeting Expletive Policy." Federal Communications Law Journal. June 2010. Web. 06 Oct. 2011. http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v62/no3/9-%20BARRON_FINAL.pdf. Cole, Harry. "FCC v. Fox - The Supreme Court Rules : CommLawBlog."CommLawBlog : Broadcast & Communications Lawyers & Attorneys : Fletcher Heald & Hildreth Law Firm : Telecommunications, FCC Regulation, Communications Act. 29 Apr. 2009. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <http://www.commlawblog.com/2009/04/articles/broadcast/fcc-v-fox-thesupreme-court-rules/>. Coleman, Toby. "Explaining Change and Rethinking Dirty Words: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, INC." Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy. 04 Dec. 2008. Web. 08 Oct. 2011. http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djclpp/index.php?action=showitem&id=88. "FCC v. Fox Television Stations." SCOTUSblog. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fcc-v-fox-television-stations/>. FCC v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 07 October 2011. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_582. Hiserman, Christopher. Comment, Silencing Fox: The Chilling Effect of the FCC's Indecent Speech Policy, 52 B.C. L. Rev. E. Supp. 15 (2011). http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/bclawreview/supplement/02_hiserman.html. "Obscenity, Indecency and Profanity | FCC.gov." Home | FCC.gov. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity>. "Obscenity, Indecency and The Law." Web. 07 Oct. 2011. http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/class/law/1.12obscenity.html. Pierre, Lucienne, and Kaci White. "FCC v. Fox Television Stations (07-582) | LII / Legal Information Institute." LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. Web. 05 Oct. 2011. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-582. Winograb, Ben. "Government Files Petition in Janet Jackson Case." SCOTUSblog. 20 Nov. 2008. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=8285>.

Yin, David. "Harvard Law and Policy Review FCC v. Fox: The End of Pacifica?"Harvard Law and Policy Review. 5 Oct. 2011. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <http://hlpronline.com/2011/10/fccv-fox-the-end-of-pacifica/>.

Kane 16 Primary Source Documentation:

Federal Communications Commission and United States of America v. CBS Corporation, CBS Broadcasting, Inc.,CBS Television Stations, Inc., CBS Stations of Texas L.P., and KUTV Holdings, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States of America. 24 May 2010. Federal Trade Commission. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <http://www.fcc.gov/document/cbs-corporationcbs-broadcasting-inc-cbs-television-stations-inc-cbs-stations-group-texas-l>. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. and Federal Communications Commission and United States of America v. ABC, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States of America. 21 Apr. 2011. The Federal Communications Commission. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <http://www.fcc.gov/document/fccusa-v-abc-inc-fox-television-stations-inc-et-al>. Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States of America. Cornell University Law School. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-582.ZS.html>. Notices of Apparent Liability and Memorandum Opinion and Order. 15 Mar. 2006.Federal Trade Commission. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-17A1.pdf>.

Kane 17 APPENDIX: A. 3 pages majority/ dissents - official version (pages located at the end) Federal Communications Commission and United States of America v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. and Federal Communications Commission and United States of America v. ABC, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States of America. 21 Apr. 2011. The Federal Communications Commission. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <http://www.fcc.gov/document/fccusa-v-abc-inc-fox-television-stations-inc-et-al>. B. Exhibit 1 "Golden Globes 2003 U2 Wins Best Original Song - YouTube." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. 25 Oct. 2010. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEIWI15F6aA>. In this video, Bono (who is the main singer for U2) wins Best Original Song at the Golden Globe Awards in 2003. In his acceptance speech he uses the word fuck, which caused a lot of the controversy in the case of FCC v. Fox TV. I tried finding more videos of incidents that happened at the Golden Globe Awards and the Music Billboard Awards, but I could not find any footage. In relations to Cher and Nicole Richie, there were only videos about the actual case of FCC v. Fox that discussed the issue not the actual footage of the event. C. Four Main SourcesBarron, Jerome A. "FCC v. Fox Television Stations and the FCC's New Fleeting Expletive Policy." Federal Communications Law Journal. June 2010. Web. 06 Oct. 2011. http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v62/no3/9-%20BARRON_FINAL.pdf Christopher Hiserman, Comment, Silencing Fox: The Chilling Effect of the FCC's Indecent Speech Policy, 52 B.C. L. Rev. E. Supp. 15 (2011). http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/bclawreview/supplement/02_hiserman.html. Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States of America. Cornell University Law School. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-582.ZS.html>. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. and Federal Communications Commission and United States of America v. ABC, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States of America. 21 Apr. 2011. The Federal Communications Commission. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <http://www.fcc.gov/document/fccusa-v-abc-inc-fox-television-stations-inc-et-al>. D. All quotations and paraphrasing sources highlighted (sources located at the end)

Kane 18 E. Added ValueThese two graphs show the statistics of the number of complaints of indecency that FCC received from 2002 to 2007. The second graph goes more into detail about the individual quarters of complaints. The website (cited below) gives reason for the numbers and percentages. For example, 2004 is drastically high in complaints probably from the Janet Jackson Super Bowl performance. Lastly, the complaints mostly come from Parents Television Council and Concerned Women for America.

Lasar, Matthew. "Activists Focused on GTAIV? FCC Indecency Complaints Plummet."Ars Technica. 2007. Web. 04 Dec. 2011. <http://arstechnica.com/techpolicy/news/2008/07/activists-focused-on-gtaiv-fcc-indecency-complaints-plummet.ars>