How Is Fox News Registered With Fcc
| FCC five. Fox Television Stations, Inc. | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued November 4, 2008 Decided April 28, 2009 | |
| Full instance name | Federal Communications Committee, Petitioner 5. Fob Idiot box Stations, Respondent |
| Docket no. | 07-582 |
| Citations | 556 U.South. 502 (more) 129 S. Ct. 1800; 173 L. Ed. 2d 738; 2009 U.South. LEXIS 3297 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Fox Television receiver Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 489 F.3d 444 (2d Cir. 2007); cert. granted, 552 U.S. 1255 (2008). |
| Subsequent | On remand, 613 F.3d 317 (2nd Cir. 2010); cert. granted, 564 U.S. 1036 (2011); vacated and remanded, FCC v. Trick Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012). |
| Belongings | |
| The Federal Communications Commission had not acted arbitrarily when information technology changed a long-standing policy and implemented a new ban on fifty-fifty "fleeting expletives" from the airwaves. The Court explicitly declined to make up one's mind whether the new rule is constitutional, and sent that upshot dorsum to the lower courts for their review. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined past Roberts, Thomas, Alito; Kennedy (all but Part III–E) |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Concurrence | Kennedy (in part) |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Dissent | Ginsburg |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| Administrative Procedure Act | |
Federal Communications Commission five. Pull a fast one on Television set Stations, Inc. , 556 U.South. 502 (2009), is a decision by the The states Supreme Court that upheld regulations of the Federal Communications Commission that ban "fleeting expletives" on television broadcasts, finding they were not arbitrary and capricious nether the Authoritative Procedure Act.[1] The ramble issue, however, was non resolved and was remanded to the Second Excursion and re-appealed to the Supreme Court for a conclusion in June 2012.[two]
Groundwork [edit]
The case entered the Supreme Court's docket in October 2007 and specifically concerns obscene language circulate on the Fox television network from ii Billboard Music Awards shows from 2002 and 2003.[three] In the 2002 prove, presenter Cher said "fuck 'em" regarding people who she believed criticized her; in the 2003 testify, presenter Nicole Richie stated regarding her television show: "Why do they even call it The Simple Life? Have you lot ever tried to become cow shit out of a Prada purse? It'due south not and then fucking simple." [4]
In 2004, the FCC prohibited "single uses of vulgar words" under whatsoever circumstances, including previous instances where information technology gave leeway for "fleeting" expletives that networks unknowingly immune to enter the airwaves.[5] However, the United States Courtroom of Appeals for the 2nd Excursion ruled in the case Fox et al. v. Federal Communications Commission (06-1760) that the FCC cannot punish broadcast stations for such incidents.[6]
On the calendar week of March 17, 2008, the Supreme Court appear that information technology would hear this example.[7] The Supreme Courtroom heard arguments from the case on November iv, 2008, which was too Ballot Day. Main Justice John K. Roberts and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia expressed back up for the FCC.[8]
Supreme Court decision [edit]
The Supreme Court ruled in a 5–iv decision on Apr 28, 2009 that the Federal Communications Committee had not acted arbitrarily when information technology changed a long-continuing policy and implemented a new ban on even "fleeting expletives" from the airwaves. The Court explicitly declined to decide whether the new rule is constitutional, and sent that upshot back to the lower courts for their review. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, wrote: "The FCC's new policy and its social club finding the broadcasts at event actionably indecent were neither arbitrary nor capricious."[9] In the dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens claimed that this decision was hypocritical given the presence of television commercials for products treating impotence or constipation.[10]
Starting time Amendment question [edit]
In its decision, "the court did non definitively settle the First Amendment implications of assuasive a federal bureau to conscience broadcasts,"[eleven] and left that issue for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. However, Justice Clarence Thomas'due south divide stance openly stated his willingness to overturn Federal Communications Committee v. Pacifica Foundation and Carmine Lion Broadcasting Co. 5. Federal Communications Commission, the two cases on which all FCC authority balance, even as he joined the majority on procedural grounds.
Subsequent history [edit]
Upon remand, the Second Excursion addressed the actual Constitutionality of the fleeting curse rules, striking it down in July 2010.[12] The FCC re-appealed the instance. On June 21, 2012, the Courtroom decided the re-appeal narrowly, striking downwardly the fines equally unconstitutionally vague, merely upholding the authority of the FCC to act in the interests of the general public when licensing broadcast spectrums to enforce decency standards, so long every bit they are not vague, without violating the First Amendment.[2]
Meet also [edit]
- FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
- List of United states of america Supreme Court cases, volume 556
- List of Us Supreme Court cases
References [edit]
- ^ FCC 5. Fox Tv Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009).
This article incorporates public domain textile from judicial opinions or other documents created by the federal judiciary of the U.s.a.. - ^ a b FCC v. Flim-flam Television set Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012).
- ^ Biskupic, Joan (October 25, 2007). "Fight over Tv set indecency is on high court'due south doorstep". USA Today . Retrieved January 22, 2009.
- ^ Pinker, Steven (Nov 2008). "Freedom's Curse". The Atlantic . Retrieved Jan 22, 2009.
- ^ Romero, Francis (October 6, 2008). "The Supreme Courtroom's 2008 Docket". Fourth dimension. Archived from the original on October 9, 2008. Retrieved January 22, 2009.
- ^ Labaton, Stephen (June v, 2007). "Court Rebuffs F.C.C. on Fines for Indecency". The New York Times . Retrieved Jan 29, 2009.
- ^ Ahrens, Frank (March 25, 2008). "Flim-flam Refuses To Pay FCC Indecency Fine". The Washington Postal service. p. D1. Retrieved January 22, 2009.
- ^ "Supreme Courtroom Divided On TV Profanity". Associated Press. Nov 4, 2008. Retrieved January 22, 2009.
- ^ Eggerton, John (April 28, 2009). "Supreme Court Backs Authorities Regulation of Fleeting Expletives". Broadcasting & Cable . Retrieved April 28, 2009.
- ^ Serjeant, Jill (April 28, 2009). "Critics say U.S. Television receiver obscenity ruling out of touch". Reuters. Retrieved April 28, 2009.
- ^ Suderman, Peter (April 5, 2010) The FCC Doesn't Need to Be, Reason
- ^ Second Excursion opinion against FCC on constitutional grounds
External links [edit]
Text of FCC v. Fox Tv set Stations, Inc., 556 U.South. 502 (2009) is bachelor from:Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip stance)
- Play a joke on et al. v. Federal Communications Commission oral argument on archive.org - second Circuit Court of Appeals
- Associated Press commodity nearly the example
How Is Fox News Registered With Fcc,
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Fox_Television_Stations,_Inc._(2009)
Posted by: hawkunflithen90.blogspot.com
0 Response to "How Is Fox News Registered With Fcc"
Post a Comment