1. Facts of the Case

 

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/pacifica.html

 

One day, a father was driving home with his son in the car, when they hear George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” being broadcasted. The father issued a complaint to the FCC, who forwarded that complaint to the Pacific Foundation, which was broadcasting Carlin’s monologue. Pacifica said that before the broadcast, there was a disclaimer that said that the content contained sensitive language that could be seen as offensive. They also said: Carlin as “a significant social satirist, who like Twain and Sahl before him, examines the language of ordinary people … Carlin is not mouthing obscenities, he is merely using words to satirize as harmless and essentially silly our attitudes towards those words.”

 

On February 21, 1975, the Commission issued a declaratory order granting the complaint and holding that Pacifica “could have been the subject of administrative sanctions,” as they found the power to regulate under  18 U.S.C. 1464, which prohibits use of any profane, indecent or obscene language by ways of radio broadcast. The Commission did not impose formal sanctions, but it did state that the order would be “associated with the station’s license file, and in the event that subsequent complaints are received, the Commission will then decide whether it should utilize any of the available sanctions it has been granted by Congress.” When asked to clarify, the FCC said that it never intended to put an absolute prohibition on broadcasts of this type of language, but sought to channel it to times of day when children would not be among the audience.

 

The U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the FCC’s decision, with Judge Tramm and Chief Judge Brazelon concurring that the FCC’s decision was a form of censorship, according to the Communications Act of 1934. Judge Leventhal dissented, saying that children need to be protected, not only from indecent language, but also from the idea that such language had official approval.

 

2. Legal Issue

The legal issue is whether the First Amendment allows the government any power to restrict the public broadcast of indecent language.

 

3. Decision

The court ruled in favor of the FCC, saying that while society finding speech offensive is not a sufficient reason to suppress it, this broadcast had no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

 

4. Analysis

This is considered a landmark case in U.S. history, because it defined the power or regulation of the FCC, and essentially pushed the broadcast of “offensive” things on public access TV and radio to between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

 

5. Questions

-Do you agree with the court’s ruling?

-Is there a line between politically offensive speech and socially offensive speech?

-With some TV shows pushing the limits of what is acceptable, has this court decision become outdated?