
	Where results make sense

Topic: FCC v Pacifica Foundation

Related Topics

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States

Harry Blackmun

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Due Process Clause

John Paul Stevens

Fairness Doctrine

Potter Stewart

Byron White

Obscenity

Thurgood Marshall

George Carlin

List of United States Supreme Court cases

Federal Communications Commission

Gerald Ford

In the News (Sat 2 Jun 12)

EXECUTIVE POWER

Iran

ANALYSIS

Pakistan

Family compact

	FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
		Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S.) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that defined the power of the Federal Communications Commission over indecent material as applied to broadcasting.
		In 1973, a father complained to the FCC that his son had heard the George Carlin routine "Seven Words You Can't Say on the Radio" broadcast one afternoon over WBAI, a Pacifica Foundation FM radio station in New York City.
		The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC action, by a vote of 5 to 4, ruling that the routine was "indecent but not obscene." They stated that the FCC had authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience.
	www.sciencedaily.com /encyclopedia/fcc_v__pacifica_foundation (227 words)

	FCC v. Pacifica
		Pacifica's claim that the broadcast was not indecent within the meaning of the statute rests entirely on the absence of prurient appeal.
		Pacifica argues, however, that this Court has construed the term "indecent" in related statutes to mean "obscene," as that term was defined in Miller v.
		Pacifica, in response to an FC0C inquiry about its broadcast of Carlin's satire on "`the words you couldn't say on the public airways,'" explained that "Carlin is not mouthing obscenities, he is merely using words to satirize as harmless and essentially silly our attitudes towards those words." 56 F. 2d, at 95, 96.
	www.epic.org /free_speech/fcc_v_pacifica.html (14220 words)

	Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc,., et al. v. F.C.C., 518 U.S. 727 (1996) (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		FCC, 492 U.S. Second, §10(a) arises in a very particular context--congressional permission for cable operators to regulate programming that, but for a previous Act of Congress, would have had no path of access to cable channels free of an operator's control.
		Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S., and the balance Congress struck here is commensurate with the balance the Court approved in that case.
		Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S., 748, is not persuasive, since that lower standard does not even apply to infringements on the liberties of cable operators, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
	straylight.law.cornell.edu /supct/html/95-124.ZS.html (1490 words)

	FCC v Pacifica Foundation
		Second, Pacifica argues that inasmuch as the recording is not obscene, the Constitution forbids any abridgment of the right to broadcast it on the radio.
		On its face, it does not prevent respondent Pacifica Foundation from broadcasting the monologue during late evening hours when fewer children are likely to be in the audience, nor from broadcasting discussions of the contemporary use of language at any time during the day.
		To insure that the FCC's regulation of protected speech does not exceed these bounds, my Brother POWELL is content to rely upon the judgment of the Commission while my Brother STEVENS deems it prudent to rely on this Court's ability accurately to assess the worth of various kinds of speech.
	www.law.umkc.edu /faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/pacifica.html (4425 words)

	ACLU v. Reno Decision -- Dalzell decision
		Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. The conferees intend that the term indecency (and the rendition of the definition of that term in new section 502) has the same meaning as established in FCC v.
		In Pacifica, the Supreme Court held that multiple repetition of expletives could be indecent.{65} Although the FCC did not follow this rationale with respect to a broadcast of "a bona fide news story" on National Public Radio,{66} the ACLU, a plaintiff here, could take little comfort from that administrative decision.
		FCC ("A licensed broadcaster is 'granted the free and exclusive use of a limited and valuable part of the public domain; when he accepts that franchise it is burdened by enforceable public obligations.'"){77} (citation omitted); Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v.
	www.pas.rochester.edu /~mbanks/CDA/decision/dalzell.html (9224 words)

	FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		The FCC's authority to proscribe this particular broadcast is not invalidated by the possibility that its construction of the statute may deter certain hypothetically protected broadcasts containing patently offensive references to sexual and excretory activities.
		The Commission identified several words that referred to excretory or sexual activities or organs, stated that the repetitive, deliberate use of those words in an afternoon broadcast when children are in the audience was patently offensive, and held that the broadcast was indecent.
		The absence of any hesitancy in the opinions of my Brothers POWELL and STEVENS to approve the FCC's censorship of the Carlin monologue on the basis of two demonstrably inadequate grounds is a function of their perception that the decision will result in little, if any, curtailment of communicative exchanges protected by the First Amendment.
	www.bc.edu /bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/pacifica.html (12833 words)

	Conference Report on CDA
		Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. Defenses to violations of the new sections assure that attention is focused on bad actors and not those who lack knowledge of a violation or whose actions are equivalent to those of common carriers.
		The conferees intend that the term indecency (and the rendition of the definition of that term in new section 502) has the same meaning as established in FCC v.
		FCC, 492 U.S. These cases clearly establish the principle that the federal government has a compelling interest in shielding minors from indecency.
	www.cybertelecom.org /CDA/confrep.htm (1808 words)

	ApolloMedia v. Reno - Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
		FCC, 492 U.S. Again, it would be absurd to ascribe different meaning to the term "indecent" in Subsection (a)(1)(A) of § 223 than to the very same term in Subsection (b).
		The government acknowledges that the FCC "had long interpreted section 1464 to extend to communications that are not obscene under Miller." Def.Opp.
		A principled position by the government would be to submit to a judgment with preclusive effect, ruling out any prosecution for "indecent" speech, with or without the "intent to annoy." Instead, defendant attempts a desperate distortion of the statute to avoid a ruling of unconstitutionality.
	annoy.com /history/doc.html?DocumentID=100204 (4578 words)

	[No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		FCC V. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court (Parts I, II, III, and IV-C) and an opinion in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR.
		Prurient appeal is an element of the obscene, but the normal definition of "indecent" merely refers to nonconformance with accepted standards of morality.[fn14] Pacifica argues, however, that this Court has construed the term "indecent" in related statutes to mean "obscene," as that term was defined in Miller v.
		California, 403 U.S. 15, 25.[fn25] In this case it is undisputed that the content of Pacifica's broadcast was "vulgar," "offensive," and "shocking." Because content of that character is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection under all circumstances, we must consider its context in order to determine whether the Commission's action was constitutionally permissible.
	www.eff.org /legal/cases/FCC_v_Pacifica/fcc_v_pacifica.decision (13681 words)

	[No title]
		The underlying facts that gave rise to the Pacifica case are described in In the Matter of a Citizen’s Complaint Against Pacifica Foundation Station WBAI (FM), New York, N.Y. 2d 94 (1975).
		FCC, 900 F.2d 351, 359 (D.C. Cir., 4/10/90), the Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC’s refusal to consider, in a license renewal proceeding, an "ordinary" citizen's obscenity complaint because the complaint did not set forth a "prima facie" case of obscenity was “arbitrary:”
		If the FCC can monitor programs to protect children against too many ads, it can monitor programs to protect children and unconsenting adults in the privacy of their homes from programs known to be grossly vulgar or to include explicit sex talk, sexual activity or nudity.
	www.moralityinmedia.org /testing/radioTvIndecency/memocongfcc.htm (4335 words)

	FCC v. Pacifica
		Pacifica argues, however, that this Court has construed the term "indecent" in related statutes to mean "obscene"...
		In holding that criminal sanctions could not be imposed on Cohen for his political statement in a public place, the Court rejected the argument that his speech would offend unwilling viewers; it noted that "there was no evidence that persons powerless to avoid [his] conduct did in fact object to it."...
		Because the Carlin monologue is obviously not an erotic appeal to the prurient interests of children, the Court, for the first time, allows the government to prevent minors from gaining access to materials that are not obscene, and are therefore protected, as to them.
	www.comm.uiuc.edu /Helle/pacifica.htm (4045 words)

	NEA v. Finley: Rockefeller Foundation (Amicus Curiae)
		Second, the Foundation collaborates with the NEA on projects that are developed and funded by both organizations but administered through regranting agencies approved by the NEA, the Foundation, and any other funders involved.
		In upholding the broadcast regulation in Pacifica, this Court identified a number of key factors not present here, including the special nature of broadcast media, the potential intrusion of the offensive speech into the home, and the fact that the regulation only applied during times when children might hear the broadcast.
		FCC, 492 U.S. Similarly, the decision in Bethel rested on the fact that the regulated speech at issue was presented at an assembly to "children in a public school," and not to "adults in another setting[]." Bethel, 478 U.S. at 682 (distinguishing Cohen v.
	www.csulb.edu /~jvancamp/doc21.html (6724 words)

	WBAI - Art History Online Reference and Guide
		It joined the foundation in 1960, when it was given to Pacifica by philanthropist Louis Schweitzer.
		Pacifica Foundation for a detailed account of the court case that ensued.
		It wasn't until WBAI aired the routine that the seven curse words (which were jokingly cited as being prohibited from American broadcasting) indeed became officially prohibited from broadcasting by the FCC.
	www.arthistoryclub.com /art_history/WBAI (217 words)

	EFF "Legal Cases - FCC v Pacifica (George Carlin `7 Dirty Words` Case)" Archive (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08)
		EFF "Legal Cases - FCC v Pacifica (George Carlin `7 Dirty Words` Case)" Archive
		Supreme Court decision in the 1974 George Carlin "Seven Dirty Words" case, FCC v.
		Pacifica Foundation (the original Carlin monologue that was the subject of the case was actually called "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television".) This decision established indecency regulation in broadcasting, and for over two decades has established the FCC as the largest censorship body in the world.
	www.eff.org /legal/cases/FCC_v_Pacifica (111 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)