[BC] Indecency bill

[Greg Newton]

The problem is the DC Circuit has consistently refused to buy the First 
Amendment vagueness claim in the past (such as the ACT et al. challenges in 
the 90s). Even though the enforcement standard has, if anything, gotten 
more vague and subjective since then, I'm not sure that a different outcome 
is likely this time.

Nevertheless, it looks like KCSM, the community college PBS TV station in 
California that was cited in the March indecency order (for the Godfathers 
and Sons segment of The Blues), is going to challenge the Commission's 
ruling in their case. Given the unfairness of that particular 
ruling--compare it with the Saving Private Ryan decision--we should all 
hope they prevail.
--
Greg

--On Thursday, June 08, 2006 4:39 PM -0400 Rich Wood <richwood at pobox.com> 
wrote:

> This might be a good thing. When the fines are low it's a cost of doing
> business and we pay them knowing we'd probably win in court because of
> the vagueness of the rules. If Infinity was willing to pay $1.7 million
> to settle Howard Stern's problems and Clear Channel paid to wipe out past
> "indecencies" the fines will have to be huge to inspire companies to take
> the FCC to court and make them firm up the rules. At this point no one
> knows what's technically indecent.
>
> On the other hand, we might end up with some pretty dull and lifeless
> programming out of fear of fines if we even lick the envelope.
>
> Rich
>
>
> Rich Wood
> Rich Wood Multimedia
> Phone: 413-454-3258
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
> http://www.radiolists.net/