ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> LawPundit

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Commentary

: LawPundit

Second Circuit Strikes Down FCC Indecency Policy as Unconstitutional : Fleeting Expletives are Protected Speech

By Andis Kaulins

ADVERTISEMENTS
At Second Circuit Flushes FCC Indecency Policy the CommLawBlog of Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C. discusses the Second Circuit decision in Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, which struck down the FCC indecency policy as being unconstitutionally vague and creating a "chilling effect" on constitutionally protected free speech, finding that fleeting expletives are protected. As written by the Court:
"LEVAL, POOLER, and HALL, Circuit Judges....

POOLER, Circuit Judge:

This petition for review comes before us on remand from the Supreme Court. Previously
we held, with Judge Leval dissenting, that the indecency policy of the Federal Communications
Commission (?FCC? or ?Commission?) was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative
Procedure Act (?APA?), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). See Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 489
F.3d 444, 462 (2d Cir. 2007). The Supreme Court reversed, upholding the policy under the APA
and remanding for consideration of petitioners? constitutional arguments. See Fox Television
Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1819 (2009) (Scalia, J.). We now hold that the FCC?s
policy violates the First Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling
effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here. Thus, we grant the petition for review and vacate the FCC?s order and the indecency policy underlying it."
We agree with the Court's decision as being right on the Constitutional Law issue but we do hope that the case does not help to contribute to the general decline in the quality of speech on public and private media, where expletives too often seem to replace thought and intelligent language expressiveness and where the intellectual level of language used is sometimes what we would simply call language garbage. Unfortunately, such language garbage is also speech protected by the 1st Amendment.

Full post as published by LawPundit on July 16, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 10/31/26 15:22:47)