The FCC Won't Let NBC Be

            When many people think they have the freedom of expression, they think they can say whatever they want. So why then does broadcast television or radio need to be censored. There is actually an independent United States government agency that regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable and is the United State’s primary authority for communication law, regulation and technological innovation. This agency is known as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The FCC's website defines its responsibilities as restricting indecent and profane material and banning obscene material. The First Amendment protects indecent material and it would be against the Communications Act to ban it entirely. However, the FCC is allowed to restrict indecent and profane material between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. to avoid the hours where children would likely be watching. Obscene material on the other hand gets no late night airtime. Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and therefore cannot be broadcasted at any time. The FCC’s rules and regulations are found within the Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

We live in an age where we are constantly surrounded by the various forms entertainment. For one independent commission to have such power in regulating television and radio broadcasts seems worrisome. Especially when their guidelines are based off such broad terms such as indecent and obscene.  ACLU’s article on the Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment raised some questions on the right for the government to have the authority to dictate what its citizens may or may not listen to, read, or watch.

The article brings up when the Supreme Court first defined what obscene materials were not constitutionally protected in the case Miller v. California. The Court’s definition of constitutionally unprotected obscenity has three requirements. The first states that the work must appeal to the average person’s prurient interest in sex. Next, it must depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards. Finally, the work taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. On the other hand, the Supreme Court states that indecent expression is entitled to some constitutional protection but may be regulated in the media.

Many Supreme Court Justices have vocally proclaimed their worries of the subjectivity and vagueness that these definitions assign. As Justice John Marshall said, “One man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” All in all, it is troublesome to have one commission in regulating such a dynamic part of society on the premise of such a vague and indistinguishable law.