This is the presentation to go along with my Media Communication Research Research Paper over the transition of indecency laws transition to online/digital.
2. Brief Legal History
FCC v. Pacifica
Found created the
Carlin’s list of seven
words you can’t say
on public airwaves.
Nat’l Broad. Co v.
FCC, 319 U.S. 130,
213 [1943]: First
case of spectrum
scarcity
Red Lion: Must Give
every individual a
chance to speak
when personally
attacked.
3. Recent Case Law
National Broadcast Co. v. Federal Communications Com., 132 F.2d 545; was
the first case of broadcast signal interference.
Established the FCC power to control what radio stations aired with their signal,
but not the ability to deny control where it’s broadcasted.
FCC v. Fox TV Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239; the first case where fleeting
expletives were tried to be regulated by FCC.
Didn’t work due to failure to notify.
Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294; The first case the Supreme court ruled
against Indecency based on viewpoint discrimination.
4. Statute Law
Conclusions
Despite FCC v. Pacifica where
broadcasting has scarcity with the
spectrum, the internet does not.
Iancu v. Brunetti proved that
indecency laws are going to, and some
already have, change due to the loss
of scarcity
However, Supreme Court calls for
stricter Scrutiny for further Indecency
regulation
5. Future Legal Questions
How will the Supreme Court/FCC justify a
new forum of regulations without scarcity
being present?
What laws will make the transition?
6. References
Brotman, Stuart N., (2019) Broadcast Regulation
(pp. 153-174) In Communication and the Law, 2019
Edition. (W.W. Hopkins, Ed.) Northport Alabama:
Vision Press.
CHARLES CHRISTOPHER DAVIS (Spring 2010).
COMMENT: THE SUPREME COURT MAKES IT HARDER
TO CONTEST ADMINISTRATIVEAGENCY POLICY
SHIFTS IN FCC V. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS,
INC.. Administrative Law Review, 62, 603.
FCC v. Fox TV Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 132 S.
Ct. 2307, 183 L. Ed. 2d 234, 2012 U.S. LEXIS4661,
80 U.S.L.W. 4494, 40 Media L. Rep. 1881, 23 Fla.
L. Weekly Fed. S 420, 56 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 331,
2012 WL 2344462 (Supreme Court of the United
States June 21, 2012, Decided * *Together with
Federal Communications Commission v. ABC, Inc.,
et al., also on certiorari to the same court (see
this Court's Rule 12.4).).
FCC v. NBC, 319 U.S. 239, 63 S. Ct. 1035, 87 L. Ed.
1374, 1943 U.S. LEXIS 1131 (Supreme Court of the
United States May 17, 1943, Decided ).
7. References
FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 98 S. Ct. 3026, 57
L. Ed. 2d 1073, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 135, 3 Media L. Rep.
2553, 43 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 493 (Supreme Court of the
United States July 3, 1978, Decided ).
Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294, 204 L. Ed. 2d 714,
2019 U.S. LEXIS 4201, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 1057,
2019 WL 2570622 (Supreme Court of the United States
June 24, 2019, Decided).
MacDonald, K. (2019, February 28). Parents: don't panic
about Momo – worry about YouTube Kids instead | Keza
MacDonald.
Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744, 198 L. Ed. 2d 366, 2017
U.S. LEXIS 3872, 85 U.S.L.W. 4389, 45 Media L. Rep.
1849, 122 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1757, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed.
S 686, 2017 WL 2621315 (Supreme Court of the United
States June 19, 2017, Decided).
8. References
National Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Com., 132 F.2d 545, 76
U.S. App. D.C. 238, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4619 (United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia. September 12, 1942, Decided On Reargument).
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 381 F.2d 908, 127 U.S. App. D.C. 129, 1967
U.S. App. LEXIS 6045 (United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit June 13, 1967, Decided ).
Watson, John C., (2019). Regulating Pornography (pp. 97-82), in
Communication and the Law, 2019 Edition. (W.W. Hopkins, Ed.) Northport
Alabama: Vision Press.
§ 1052. Trademarks registrable on the principal register; concurrent
registration, 15 USCS § 1052 (Current through Public Law 116-72, approved
November 25, 2019.).