'Where The Wild Things Are' Runs $32.4M 
Oscar Can't Always Get What He Wants 
NBC Bright Spot Of Lousy GE 3Q Earnings; 4Q … 
Oops! Vivendi May Delay 20% NBCU Sale? 
65 Nations Vie For Foreign Language Oscar 
Elle's Women In Hollywood Power List 
HOW BIG IS BIG? AEG Predicts Michael Jackson … 
Sane Debt-Reduction Move By Redstone; But … 
EXCLUSIVE: Comcast Wants NBCU Deal Done … 
News Corp and the FCC have been battling over decency rules after Cher blurted "fuck" during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards broadcast and Nicole Richie used a variation of that word and "shit" during the 2003 awards, both on the Fox TV network. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would take up this issue of "fleeting indecency" on the airwaves for the first time in 30 years -- not since George Carlin's infamous "Filthy Words" monologue. The high court agreed to hear an appeal by the FCC to review a ruling that undercut the regulator's definition of indecency and whether it includes a single "fleeting" use of a swear word on TV. Fox has been arguing that the FCC's decency standard was unclear and violated free-speech protections. FCC chairman Kevin Martin said he's glad the high court has agreed to review the case. 
"I continue to believe we have an obligation ... to enforce laws restricting indecent language on television and radio when children are in the audience. Fox issued a statement saying it was also pleased by the decision "as this will give us an opportunity to demonstrate once again the arbitrary nature of the FCC's decision in this and similar cases. It will also give us the opportunity to argue that the FCC's expanded enforcement of the indecency law is unconstitutional in today's diverse media marketplace where parents have access to a variety of tools to monitor their children's television viewing." The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case and to issue a decision during its upcoming term that begins in October.
Supremes To Hear "Fleeting Indecency"
Marketplace
News/Opinion Poll
Loading ...Box Office Poll
Loading ...
It’s not TV…(pauvre HBO) It’s the Supreme Court!
Gee, maybe the Supremes will decide there’s another F-word besides “Fox.”
What gives Diana Ross the right to be America’s moral arbiter? She’s so mean.
There is a significant but very real difference between someone performing a comedic monologue and someone making a speech at an awards show or appearing on a morning talk show. The difference is that a monologue is essentially scripted and designed to be performed on a number of occasions. An awards acceptance speech is impromptu and not repeatable. An interview on a morning show – like the ones recently given by Dianne Keaton and Jane Fonda are similarly impromptu. It stands to reason that a broadcaster would know that a comedian performing a monologue will be using unsuitable language and be able to react accordingly while the producer, director, or host of a live event or show – by the very nature of the thing – don’t have the luxury of knowing what the next word out of a guest’s mouth will be. Practically since the dawn of television in the United States there has been a policy of permitting such events as long as they are not part of a larger repeated pattern of behaviour. There is a difference between Dianne Keaton saying “fuck” on the Today Show and what Howard Stern did when he was on broadcast radio. The old FCC policy was based on simple common sense. Of course that’s a commodity that sometimes seems in short supply in the current administration.
Then again I’m a Canadian. We can see nudity and hear swearing and our regulators don’t think it will turn the country into a bunch of slathering sex maniacs.
Aw, fuck