Supreme Court overturns Second Court re: FCC v. Fox

[derby378]

Source: SCOTUSblog

Vote appears to be unanimous. From the live blog: "Because the FCC failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcast that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity would be indecent, the Commission's standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague. Because it resolves these cases under the due process clause, it does not involve the First Amendment implications or reconsider Pacifica at this time."

"It is not addressing the constitutionality of the current indecency policy and the Court leaves the Commission free to modify its policy in light of its determination of the public interest and leaves the courts free to review the current policy or any changes thereto in light of what the policy is and how it is applied."

http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/

Read more: http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/

[warrior1]

1. from the blog

7


Amy:
No more opinions, according to Lyle. No health care coming today, no Arizona.
10:27


Amy:
Our reader numbers just dropped quickly.
10:27


Tom:
Thanks again to everyone, and to those who linked to us, including especially Drudge Report and Instapundit, both amazing sites.
10:28


Amy:
We will definitely be back on Monday for additional opinions; we will also have orders from the Court's conference today on Monday.
10:29


Tom:
The Court has 4 decisions left, plus health care.
10:29


Tom:
We'll start up the live blog sometime soon after 9am.
10:29


Tom:
(On Monday.)
10:29


Tom:
The fact that the Court did not announce that Monday will be the last day means there will definitely be opinions after Monday.
10:30


Tom:
(Sorry, 5 plus health care.)
10:30


Tom:
Monday will also potentially be the day we hear about whether the Court will hear the Citizens United follow on from Montana.
10:30


Tom:
See you then.

[NYC Liberal]

2. Wow, a good decision for once.

[Ian David]

3. F the CC (NSFW)

[elleng]

4. NYT story about decision:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/business/media/justices-reject-indecency-fines-on-narrow-grounds.html?_r=1&hp

Note Justice Ginsburg:

'Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who voted with the majority but did not join its reasoning, was prepared to address the First Amendment issues raised by changes in the world of broadcasting and related media since 1978, when the Supreme Court decided the leading case in this area, Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica.

That decision said the government could restrict George Carlin’s famous “seven dirty words” monologue, which had been broadcast on the radio in the afternoon. The court relied on what it called the uniquely pervasive nature of broadcast media and its unique accessibility to children.

Both points are open to question given the rise of cable television and the Internet.

“In my view,” Justice Ginsburg wrote, the Pacifica decision “was wrong when it issued. Time, technological advances, and the commis­sion’s untenable rulings in the cases now before the Court show why Pacifica bears reconsideration.”

In remarks before the American Constitution Society last week, Justice Ginsburg discussed the case, which involved televised banter between Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton, and she suggested wryly that there were gaps in the justices’ knowledge of popular culture.

“The Paris Hiltons of this world, my law clerks told me, eagerly await this decision,” she said of the case decided Thursday. “It is beyond my comprehension, I told my clerks, how the F.C.C. can claim jurisdiction to ban words spoken in a hotel on French soil.”'