Supreme Court Rules Against Chase "F-----g" Utley

by David S. Cohen on May 7, 2009 11:57 AM EDT Comment 12 comments

Well, not really. And again, not really. But sort of. Let me explain.

Last week, the Supreme Court decided the case of FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. The case arose as a result of Bono's appearance on the 2003 Golden Globe Awards. After Bono received his award, NBC failed to hit the bleep button when Bono proclaimed "this is really, really, fucking brilliant. Really, really, great."

The FCC's delicate ears could have none of that, so it changed its policies to make clear that any "fleeting expletive" aired by a broadcaster was a violation of decency standards and could be the basis for a fine. Several broadcasters were subsequently fined for airing such fleeting expletives; in response, they challenged the policy. I provided more detail on the facts in this case when I wrote about it last fall here.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in the case and found in the FCC's favor. For those who are interested, you can read the opinion at the first link above or read a summary here. The super-short recap of the decision is that the Supreme Court found, in a 5-4 decision, that the FCC had a sufficient reason to ban fleeting expletives and was not "aribtrary and capricious" in doing so.

Chase Utley enters the picture because of his eloquent speech at the Phillies' victory party. Caught live by most local broadcasters, Chase proclaimed that the Phillies were the "World Champions . . . World Fucking Champions." Certainly, that is a fleeting expletive. Any broadcaster that aired Chase's speech would be subject to being fined by the FCC. And, after the decision last week, that fine would be pursuant to a Supreme Court-approved FCC regulation.

However, now for the qualifiers. First, I know of no FCC fine against any broadcaster for airing Chase's colorful language. Second, and this is the big one, the Supreme Court did not address the First Amendment issue lurking in the shadows -- whether a broadcaster has a First Amendment right to air such fleeting expletives. Instead, the lower courts are going to have to address that issue first and then, inevitably, the case will wind up back in the Supreme Court.

Until then, the Supreme Court has sided with the FCC and against Chase Utley (or, to be more technical about it, any broadcaster who aired Chase's victory proclamation).

0 recs | Comment 12 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

wfc

Yahoo links are NOT showing censored version of the headline. That’s surprising.

-Jay Ballz

by Jay Ballz on May 7, 2009 1:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

how weird…

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on May 7, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very strange to me that the SCOTUS would duck the 1st Amendment issue knowing full well it would have to address it eventually.

by phatj on May 7, 2009 5:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That’s actually what courts are supposed to go. They shouldn’t rule on issues that aren’t necessary to the resolution of the case that’s actually in front of them. It’s an important limitation on the judiciary’s power.

Also, is the First Amendment argument a strong one? I don’t have the foggiest idea, but it seems to me that this kind of speech wouldn’t be given too much protection since it isn’t political or anything.

by taco pal on May 7, 2009 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Any sanctioning of speech requires a compelling purpose. As we become a less “puritanical” society it’s getting harder and harder to argue that naughty words cause any kind of psychological or emotional damage.

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on May 7, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m confused with the lnaguage thing – it’s a time of day thing – i mean it used to be you could only curse on Pay channels – since they weren’t available to everyone – and then there was NYPD Blue – and they didn’t seem to get in any trouble – and much to the chagin of the parents television council – or whatever the hell they call themselves – the country didn’t end – and then south park went a little nuts – and now it seems if it’s 10 PM you can say whatever you want (except for a couple words, for some reaosn you still can’t say F or naughty parts that start with C) on FX but NBC has ‘built in bleeps’ on Southland (which i find irritating, either SAY the word or rewrite the dialogue you tools).

It seems to be a moving line even for the FCC – the fact that it’s a live event always struck me as a vital part of it – unless the FCC wants to do away with live telecasts of everything, all sporting events, 7 second delay?

"Someone created the box score," Morey says, "and he should be shot."

Blocked shots — they look great, but unless you secure the ball afterward, you haven’t helped your team all that much.

by jemagee on May 7, 2009 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I meant to say ‘is it a time of day…’

"Someone created the box score," Morey says, "and he should be shot."

Blocked shots — they look great, but unless you secure the ball afterward, you haven’t helped your team all that much.

by jemagee on May 7, 2009 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn’t that seem “arbitrary and capricious” to you? (Answer should be a resounding Yes, unless you’re Antonin Scalia)

But yes, it’s a “preventing harm” or “upholding public morals” thing.

by Geoff Detweiler on May 8, 2009 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I got my new tee shirt today and came on to see this. Honest question though, Will they give me shit at the gate if I wear this to a game ?

What about the brief case? You forgot the brief case! I'm going home! So clear a path, you motherf*ckers! Clear a path! I'M GOING HOME! -Bill Foster

by BudVugger on May 7, 2009 8:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

They could

They’re a private entity (albeit with lots of public funding, but that usually doesn’t matter), so they can have any policy they want without running afoul of the Constitution. That being said, I don’t know what CBP’s policy is on shirts like this.

by David S. Cohen on May 7, 2009 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

to budvugger-

I have seen people at CBP this yr with “WFC” shirts on. It may depend if your gate attendant is paying attention or not. Worst case scenario- you turn the shirt inside out…till you get inside.

That’s one of the best WFC shirts I have seen.

-Jay Ballz

by Jay Ballz on May 7, 2009 11:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs