May 6, 2009
Personal note:
On Monday I reported on the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the Janet
Jackson, Super Bowl Indecency Case stating in part the following:
... Monday, May 4, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the 3rd U.S. Circuit
to re-examine its ruling in favor of CBS and directed this Circuit Court of
Appeals to consider reinstating the $550,000 fine that the FCC had earlier
imposed on CBS over Jackson's breast-baring performance at the 2004 Super
Bowl. ..."
Pat Trueman, former head of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement
Section, stated the following. [Keep in mind Pat has worked inside the Beltway
with the highest courts in the lands, prosecutors, etc.. He has a legal perspective
that few of us have. This is very concerning.]
Mr. Trueman wrote:
"The 3rd Circuit is a favored circuit for the ACLU and others opposed
to decency and values. If the court takes up the issue of the constitutionality
of the federal indecency law, I predict it will strike it down and the U.S.
Supreme Court will agree, based on last week’s ruling in FCC v Fox TV.
Then it’s 'Katie bar the door' for indecency and porn on TV!"
Pat Trueman
He followed his comment with the following news article:
===
Supreme Court wants new look at 'wardrobe malfunction'
By Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The case of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction"
on national television -- and subsequent fines against CBS -- will be re-examined
at the order of the Supreme Court.
The justices Monday sent the case back to a federal appeals court in Philadelphia
that had thrown out a $550,000 government fine against the broadcast network
and its affiliates for airing the incident during halftime of the 2004 Super
Bowl. The pop singer's breast was briefly exposed during a performance with
singer Justin Timberlake.
After viewer complaints and national media attention, the Federal Communications
Commission said the Jackson incident was obscene. In addition to CBS Inc.,
20 of its affiliates also were fined.
Congress quickly reacted at the time to the visual shocker by increasing
the limit on indecency fines tenfold, up to $325,000 per violation per network.
And it said each local affiliate that aired such incidents also could be punished
by the same amount.
But the federal appeals court concluded the communications commission had
acted "arbitrarily and capriciously."
The Supreme Court's action marks the second time in recent days that it has
dealt with cases involving broadcast standards. Last week, the justices narrowly
upheld the authority of the FCC to punish networks for airing profanity.
The current government clampdown on obscene images and words began in 2003.
Enforcement of the law, as well as fines and sanctions for the incidents,
have been put on hold while the cases are being argued.
The television networks say their scripted shows no longer air nudity, racy
images or expletives, even after 10 p.m., when some potentially vulgar words
are permitted.
They worry, however, about unplanned, often spontaneous indecent or profane
incidents at live events, such as awards shows and sporting events. Company
officials say such programs are often on a five-second delay, and censors
are on hand to bleep any offensive language. But some indecent words can slip
through, they admit, and they want to be protected from heavy government fines.
Critics call that laughable.
"This past summer, CBS edited into a show that had to go through multiple
reviews, by multiple people in the organization, the F-word," said Tim
Winter, who heads the Parents Television Council, and is supporting the FCC's
efforts. His group advocates "responsible" programming, and warns
parents about questionable program content. The show in question was "Big
Brother 10," a taped series.
The Jackson incident was not on a five-second delay.
In the case involving profane language, the high court concluded 5-4 that
the communications commission has the authority to punish broadcast TV networks
that air isolated incidents of profanity, known as "fleeting expletives."
But the justices in that case refused to decide whether the commission's
policy violates the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. It ruled only
on their enforcement power. The justices ordered the free-speech aspect to
be reviewed again by a federal appeals court.
The "wardrobe malfunction" case is FCC v. CBS Corp. (08-653).
============================
MARK YOUR CALENDAR FOR JULY 31 through August 2 and look
for the specifics to follow in the weeks ahead as Pat Trueman will be the
featured speaker at ADA's national conference.
Look for more information in the weeks ahead.
===============
To donate online:
http://americandecency.org/folder.php?f=donate
=================
To purchase a copy of "Fireproof" - one of the most inspirational
Christian films of all time.
Call 888-733-2326.
==========================
American Decency Association
Bill Johnson, President
P.O. Box 202
Fremont, MI 49412
ph: 231-924-4050
http://www.americandecency.org
