Fox V. FCC

I found this article interesting because I have always been a little opposed to some of the stipulations the FCC lays down on broadcast media.

In this case, the FCC cited Fox for so-called fleeting expletives that were spoken by Cher and Nicole Richie during the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards. However, Fox was not issued any monetary fine, rather it was more of a warning for future broadcasts. But, Fox shot back, calling the citations "arbitrary and capricious" changes in the FCC policy, which had exempted for decades one-time profanities during live broadcasts. This case has reached the Supreme Court because the 2nd Court of Appeals agreed with Fox, ruling in 2007 that the new policy was invalid until the FCC could better explain and justify it. To many people's surprise the Supreme Court has taken this case because they feel that constitutional questions are at the very center of this argument.

I think it is good that no monetary fines were issued for the one time profanities, but I also think it is ridiculous that Fox was cited in the first place. Live television is a completely different type of broadcast, in which true "live" TV is hard to censor and impossible to censor without a delay. However, in my opinion, the FCC should have issued more of a notice to the media of the new policy before enacting it, making sure to include a basis for the change, considering it has been the same for numerous years.

Please read more at: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117995144.html?categoryid=22&cs=1