06-1760-ag(L), 06-2750-ag (Con.), 06-5358-ag (Con.)

Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC UNITED STA TES COU RT OF AP PEALS FO R T HE SE CO ND CI RC UI T

_______________________________ August Term, 2009 (Argued: Januar y 13, 2010, Decided: July 13, 2010)

Docket Nos. 06-1760-ag, 06-2750- ag, 06-5358-ag

_______________________________ FOX TELE VISION STATION S, INC., CBS B ROADC ASTING INC., W LS TELEVISION , INC., KTRK

TELEVISION, INC ., KMBC HEA RST-ARGY LE TELEVISION , INC., ABC INC., Pe tit ion ers ,

v. FEDERA L COMMUNICA TIONS COMMISSION, U NITED STAT ES OF AMERICA, Re sp on de nts , NBC UN IVERSAL, INC ., NBC TEL EMUNDO L ICENSE CO ., NBC TEL EVISION AFFILIATES, FB C TELEVISIONAFFILIATES AS SOCIATION, C BS TELEV ISION NETW ORK AF FILIATES, CENT ER FOR T HE CREA TIVE COMMUNITY , INC., DOING BUSINESS A S CENTER FOR CREATIVE VO ICES IN MEDIA, INC., AB C TELEVISION AFFILIATES AS SOCIATION, Int erv en ors .

_______________________________ LE VA L, PO OL ER , and

HA LL , C irc uit

Ju dg es.

_______________________________ This petit ion for review comes before us on remand from the Supreme Court. Previously, we held, with Judge Leval in dissent , that the i ndecency polic y of the Federal Comm unications Co mm iss ion

(“F CC ”) w as arbi trary and cap ric iou s u

nd er the Ad

m ini str ati ve Pr oc ed

ure Ac t (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). See Fox Televisi on Stations, I nc. v. FCC, 489 F.3d 444, 462-2-

(2d Cir. 2007). The Supreme Court rever sed, upholding the policy under t he APA and remanding for considerati on of petitioner s’ consti tutional arguments. See Fox Television St ati on s, Inc . v . F CC , 1 29 S. Ct . 1 80 0, 18 19 (20 09 ) (S cal ia, J. ). W e n owho ld t hat th e F CC ’s policy viol ates the Fi rst Amendm ent because i t is unconst itutiona lly vague, cr eating a chi lling effect that goes far beyond t he fleeting expl etives atissue here . Thus, we grant the pet ition for
rev iewan d v acate the FC C’ s o rde r an d th e in de cen cypo lic y und erl yin g it
. CARTER PHILLIPS, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC (R . C lar k W ad low , J ennif

er T ate l, D av id S . P etr on , S idl ey Austin LLP, W ashington, DC; Ellen S. Agres s, Maureen A. O’Connell, Fox Televisi on Stations, I nc., New York, NY, on the bri ef ), f or p eti tio ne r F oxTe lev isi on St ati on s, Inc
. MIGUEL ESTRA DA, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, W ashington, D.C., (Susan Weiner, NBC Universal, Inc., on the brief) for int ervenors NBC Universal I nc. and Telemundo License Co. JACOB LE W IS, Associate Gener al Counsel, for Austin C. Schlick, General Counsel, Federal Comm unications Co mm iss ion , W ash ing ton , D .C . (J os ep h R . P alm ore , Deputy General Counsel, Fede ral Comm unications Commission, W ashington, DC; Tony West, Assistant Attor ne y G en era l, T ho m as M . B on dy , Ann e Mu rphy, Ci vil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, on the bri ef ), f or r esp on de nts
. Robert Corn-Revere, Ronal d G. London, Am ber L. Husbands, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, W ashington, DC; Jonathan H. Anschell, Susa nna M. Lowy, CBS Broadcasting I nc., New York, NY, f or petit ioner CBS Br oa dc ast ingInc
. Se th P . W ax m an , W ilm er C utl er P ick eri ng Ha le and Do rr LL P, W ash ing ton , D C; Jo hn W . Z uc ke r, A BC , In c. , N ew York, NY, for petitioners ABC, Inc., WLS Television, Inc., an d K TRK T ele vis ion , In c. W ad e H . H arg rov e, Mar

k J . P rak , D av id K

us hn er, Ju lia-3- Am brose, Brooks, Peir ce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Raleigh, NC, for intervenorABC Television Affiliates Associat ion. Robert Long, Covington & Burli ng, W ashington, DC, for intervenorNBC Television Affiliates Associa tion. Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Parul P. Desai, Matt hew W ood, Med ia A cce ss P roj ect , W ash ing ton , D C, fo r inter ve no rs Center for Creati ve Voices and Future of Music Coaliti on. Michael R. Patr ick, Renzulli Law Firm, W hite Plai ns, NY; Robert M. O’Neil, J. J oshua Wheeler, Eisha Jain, The Thom as Jefferson Center for Prote ction of Free Express ion, for amici curiae The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Pr ote cti on

of Fr ee E xp res sio n and

Th e Me dia

Ins tit ute
. Nancy W inkelman, Tim othy K. Lewis, Carl A. Solano, Mark Fowler, Jer ald Fritz , Henry Geller, Newton N. Minow, James H. Quello, Glen O. Robinson, Kenneth G. Robinson, Jr., Schnader Harrrison Segal & Lewis LLP, Philadelphi a, PA, for am ici curi ae former FCC Co mm iss ion ers an d O ff

ici als
. Chris top he r H an sen , B en

jam in S ah l, Am eri can

Ci vil Li be rti es Unio n, Ne w Y ork , N Y, fo r am ici curia e A m eri can Civil Libert ies Union, New York Civil Liber ties Union, Am erican Booksel lers Foundati on for Free Expression, Am eri can Fe de ral of

Te lev isi on

an d R ad io Arti sts , Di rec tor s Guil d o f Am eri ca, Fi rst Am en dm ent P roj ect , Minne so ta P ub lic Ra dio /A m eri can Pu bli c Me dia , N ati on al Alliance for Medi a Arts and Cultur e, the National Coalition Ag ain st C en so rsh ip, Natio na l F ed eratio n o f C om m un ity Broadcaster s, PEN Am erican Cente r, Screen Actor s Guild, W ashington Area Lawyer s for the Arts, Woodhull Freedom Fo un datio n, Writ ers Gu ild of Am eri ca, W est , Writ ers Gu ild of Am eri ca, Ea st. St ev enH. Ad en , P atr ick

A. Tr ue m an , A lli an ce D ef

en se Fund, W ashington, DC; Joel B. Campbell, Law Offices of Richard J. Yrulegui , Fresno, CA, for am ici curi ae Focus on the Fam ilyan d F am ilyRe search Co un cil
. Ro be rt W . P ete rs, Ro bin

S. Whit eh ead , M ora lity in Med ia,W e address onl y the petit ion for review filed i n Docket No. 06-5358, the othertwo 1 petiti ons having been pre viously dismissed as moot by this Court. Fox, 489 F.3d at447 n.2. -4- Inc ., Ne w Y ork , N Y, fo r am icu s cu ria e Mo ral ityin M ed ia, Inc
. Robert R. Sparks, Jr., Spar ks & Craig, LLP, McLean, VA, fo r am icu s cu

ria e P are nts Te lev isi on

Co un cil , In c. Th om as B . N ort

h, St . Ig na ce, MI, fo r am icu s cu ria e Decency Enforcement Center for Television.

________________________________ PO OL ER , C irc uit

Ju dg e: Th is p eti tio n f

or r ev iewco m es b ef

ore us on rem an d f rom the Su pre m e C ourt. Pr ev iou sly we held, with Judge Leval dissenti ng, that the i ndecency polic y of the Federal Comm unications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) was arbitr ary and capri cious under t he Adm inistr ative Procedure Act ( “APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). See Fox Television St ations, Inc . v. FCC, 489 F.3d 444, 462 (2d Cir. 2007). The Supreme Court revers ed, upholding the pol icy under the APA and remanding for considerati on of petitioner s’ consti tutional arguments. See Fox Television St ati on s, Inc . v . F CC , 1 29 S. Ct . 1 80 0, 18 19 (20 09 ) (S cal ia, J. ). W e n owho ld t hat th e F CC ’s policy viol ates the Fi rst Amendm ent because i t is unconst itutiona lly vague, cr eating a chi lling effect that goes far beyond t he fleeting expl etives atissue here . Thus, we grant the pet ition for
rev iewan d v acate the FC C’ s o rde r an d th e in de cen cypo lic y und erl yin g it
. 1 BACKGROUND Section 1464 of Title 18 of United St ates Code provide s that “[w]hoever utter s any ob sce ne , in de cent, o r pr of an e lang ua ge bym ean s o f r ad io c om m un icatio n s ha ll b e f

ine d und er this ti tle or i mprisoned not more than two years, or both.” I n 1960, Congress authori zed the FCC-5-

to i m po se c ivi l f

orf eit ure s f or v iol ati on s o f S ecti on

14 64 . S ee 4 7 U .S .C . § 50 3(b )(1 )(D ). I t w as
no t until 19 75 , h ow ev er, that th e F CC fi rst ex erc ise d it s autho rity to reg ulate s pe ech it d eem ed ind ece nt b ut n ot o bs cen e. Th e sp eec h at is su e w as c om ed ian Ge org e C arl in’ s “F ilthyW ord s” monologue, a 12-m inute str ing of expletives broadcast on t he radio at2:00 in the afternoon. Th e F CC bro ug ht f

orf eit ure pro cee din gs ag ain st t

he Pa cif ica Fo un datio n, the bro ad cas ter that had ai red the Carl in monologue. Citizen’s Complaint Against Paci fica Found. Station WBAI (FM), N.Y, N.Y., 56 F.C.C .2d 94 (1975). In finding t hat Pacifica had vi olated Sect ion 1464, the Commission defined “indecent” s peech as “la nguage that des cribes, i n terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary comm unity standa rds for the broadc ast medium , sexual or
ex cre tor y a cti vit ies an d o rgans , at ti m es o f t he day whe n th ere is a

rea so na ble ris k th at c hil dre n
m aybe in t

he au die nc e. ” Id . at ¶ 1 1. Pa cif ica pe tit ion ed

fo r re vie w t o th e D .C . C irc uit , whic h declared t he FCC’s indecency regi me invalid. See Pacifica Found. v. FCC, 556 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In finding t he FCC’s order both vague a nd overbroad, the court point ed out that t he Commission’s definition of indece nt speech would prohi bit “the unc ensored broadc ast of many of the gre at w ork s o f l ite rat ure inc lud ingSh ak esp ear ian plays an d c ontem

po rar y p lay s whic h have wo n c rit ica l ac cla im , th e w ork s o f r en owne d c las sic al and co nte m po rar y p oe ts and

wr ite rs,
an d p ass ag es f

rom the Bi ble .” Id. at 1 4. Su cha re su lt, the co urt co nc lud ed , am ounte d to unconstitut ional censor ship. Id. at 18. In a plural ity opinion a uthored by Just ice Stevens, t he Supreme Court reversed. See FCC
v. Pa cif ica Fo un d. , 4 38 U. S. 72 6 (1 97 8). Th e C ourt l im ite d it s re vie w t o th e q ue sti on of wh eth er the FC C c ou ld i m

po se a civ il f orf eit ure fo r th e C arl in m on olo gu e an d d ecl ine d to ad dre ss Pa cif ica ’s argum ent th at the reg ulatio n w as o ve rbr oa d and wo uld ch ill pro tec ted

sp eec h. Id. at-6-

734-35, 743 (“Inval idating any rule on the basi s of its hypotheti cal appli cation to s ituati ons not before the Court is ‘strong medicine’ t o be applied ‘ sparingly a nd only as a las t resort .’” (quoti ng Br oa dri ck v. Ok lah om a, 41 3 U .S . 6 01 , 6 13 (19 73 ))) . In lim iti ng its rev iew , th e C ourt s tre sse d the “speci fic factual context ” of the Carlin monologue, id. at 742, focusing i n particul ar on Carlin’s de liberat e and repeti tive use of explet ives to desc ribe sexual and excretory activit ies. Th e C ourt the n w ent on

to h old that th e F CC co uld , at le ast in t he sit uatio n b ef

ore it, restri ct indecentspeech in the broadcast c ontext thatdid not meet the legal definition of ob sce nit y. Id. at 7 44 (co nc lud ingthat “i f t he go ve rnm ent ha s any s uc h p ow er [ to r est ric t ind ece nt s pe ech ], thi s w as an a pp rop riate o cca sio n f

or i ts e xe rci se” ). R est ingon a nuis an ce rat ion ale , th e C ourt f

irs t no ted that “o f a ll f

orm s o f c om

m un icatio n, it i s b roa dc ast ingthat ha s received t he most limited First Amendm ent protec tion” becaus e of its “uniquel y pervasive presence i n the lives of all Americans.” Id. at 748. Mor eover, the nature of broadcast t elevisi on – as opposed to pri nted materials – made it “unique ly accessi ble to chil dren, even those too yo un g to rea d. ” Id . at 74 9. Th e C ourt, ho we ve r, “ em ph asi ze[ d] the narro wn ess of [i ts] ho ldi ng .” Id. at 750. “[N]uisance may be m erely a r ight thing i n the wrong place, – l ike a pig in t he parlor ins tea d o f t

he barny ard . W e si m

ply ho ld t hat whe n th e C om

m iss ion fi nd s th at a

pig ha s enter ed the parlo r, t

he ex erc ise of

its reg ulator

y p ow er d oe s n ot d ep en d o n p roo f t hat th e p ig i s o bs cen e. ” Id. at 7 50 -51 (inter

na l qu otatio n m ark s o m itt ed ). Ju sti ces Po we ll and

Bl ack m un , who co nc urr ed

in a sep arate o pin ion , a lso m ad e cl ear that the FCC’s regulat ory authori ty was limited, stat ing that t he Court’s holdi ng did not give t he FCC “an unrestr icted li cense to deci de what speech, prot ected in ot her media, m ay be banned from the airwaves in or der to prot ect unwilli ng adults from m omentary exposure to itin theirhomes.” Id.-7-

at 759-60 (Powell , J

., co nc urr ing ). N or, the y e xp lai ne d, did the ho ldi ng “sp eak

to c ase s inv olv ing the iso lat ed

us e o f a po tentia llyof

fe ns ive wo rd i n th e co urs e o f a rad io b roa dc ast , a s distingui shed from the verbal shock tre atment adm inister ed by respondent he re.” Id. at760-61. Fi na lly , th eytoo k th e F CC at i ts w ord that it wo uld “p roc eed cautio us ly, ” whic h th eyrea so ne d would minim ize any chil ling effect that might otherwise result . Id. at 761 n.4. In the year s after Pacifica, t he FCC did indeed pursue a r estrai ned enforcement policy, taking the pos ition tha t its enforce ment powers were limited to the seven s pecific words in t he Carlin monologue. See In re Applic ation of WG BH Educ. Found., 69 F.C.C .2d 1250, at ¶ 10 (1978); Infini ty Broadcasti ng Corp., et al., 3 F.C.C. Rcd. 930, at ¶ 5 (1987) (“Infinity Orde r”). No enforcement actions were brought be tween 1978 and 1987. Infinity Orde r, 3 F.C.C. Rcd. 93 0, at ¶ 4. Th en , in

19 87 , th e F CC ab an do ne d it s f oc us on sp eci fi c w ord s, co nc lud ingthat “al tho ug h e nf

orc em ent w as c learlyeas ier un de r th e st an dard, it c ou ld l ead to a no m alo us res ult s that co uld no t be jus tif

ied .” Id. at ¶

5. Th e F CC rea so ne d th at und er the pri or s tan dard, patently offensive m ateria l was permissible as l ong as it avoi ded certai n words. This, the Comm ission
co nc lud ed , “ m ad e n eithe r le ga l no r po lic y s en se. ” Id . T he Co mm iss ion ins tea d d eci de d to utiliz e the definiti on it had used i n Pacifica, adopti ng a contextual approach to i ndecent speec h. De sp ite its m ov e to a m ore fl ex ibl e st an dard, the FC C c ontin ue d to ex erc ise res tra int . In parti cu lar , it

co ns ist entlyhe ld t

hat a s ing le, no n-l ite ral us e o f an e xp let ive wa s n ot a cti on ab ly indecent. See, e .g., In re Applica tion of WG BH Educ. Found, 69 F.C.C .2d 1250, at ¶ 10 n.6. (noting tha t the singl e use of an expleti ve in a progra m that aired at 5:30pm “should not cal l for us to act underthe holding of Pacifica” ); In re Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 2 F.C.C. Rcd. 2703, at ¶ 3 (1987) (“Speech thatis indecentmust involve more than an isolated us e of an offensive-8-

word.”); L.M. Comm

unications of S.C., Inc., 7 F.C.C. R cd. 1595, 1595 (1992) (finding t he sin gle utt eranc e o f t

he F- wo rd n ot i nd ece nt b eca us e it wa s a “ fl eet ingan d is olated utt eranc e which, within the c ontext of live and s pontaneous progr amm ing, does not warr ant a Comm ission sanction”) ; In re Appli cation of Lincoln Dwelle r, Renewal of the License of Stat ions KP RL (A M) and

KD DB (F M), 8 F .C .C . R cd . 2 58 2, 25 85 (19 93 ) (T he “u se o f a sin gle exple tiv e” did not warrantfurther revi ew “in light of the i solated and a ccidental nature of the broa dcast.”). In 2 00 1, in an atte m

pt t o “ pro vid e g uid an ce t o th e b roa dc ast ind us tryreg ard ing
. . . [ its ]
en fo rce m ent po lic ies wi th r esp ect to b roa dc ast

ind ece nc y, ” th e F CC iss ue d a po lic y s tat em ent in wh ich it s et f ort h it s in de cen cystand ard

in m ore de tai l. I nd

us tryGu idanc e o n th e C om m iss ion ’s Ca se L awInt erp ret ing18 U. S. C. § 1 46 4, 16 F. C. C. Rc d 7 99 9, at ¶ 1 (2 00 1) ( “In du str

y Guidance”). In I ndustry Guidance, t he FCC explained that a n indecency finding i nvolved the following two determinations: (1) whether t he material “descr ibe[s] or depict[s] sexual or
ex cre tor y o rgans or a cti vit ies ”; and (2) wh eth er the bro ad cas t is “p ate ntl y o ff en siv e as m eas ure d byco nte m

po rar y c om m un itystand ard s f

or t he bro ad cas t m ed ium .” Id. at ¶ ¶ 7- 8 (e m ph asi s
om itt ed ). T he FC C f

urt he r expla ine d th at i t co ns ide red the fo llo wi ng thr ee f

act ors in determining whether a br oadcast is patently offensive: (1) “the e xplicit ness or graphi c nature of the descri ption or depi ction”; ( 2) “whether t he material dwells on orrepeats a t length” t he descript ion or depict ion; and (3) “whether the materia l appears t o pander or is used to tit illat e, or wh eth er the m ate ria ls a

pp ear s to have be enpre sented fo r it s sh oc k v alu e. ” Id . at ¶ 1 0 (e m ph asi s omitted). The Industry Guida nce reit erated t hat under the second prong of the pate ntly offensive test, “fleet ing and isola ted” explet ives were not a ctionably i ndecent. Id. at¶ 18. In 2 00 4, ho we ve r, t

he FC C’ s p oli cyon

ind ece nc y c hang ed . D uri ng the 20 03 Go lde nTh e F CC ’s i nc rea sed en fo rce m ent ef

fo rts – a s w ell as C on gre ss’ s d eci sio n to inc rea se 2 the maxim

um f ines – were in l arge partcaused by the br oadcast of the 2004 Super Bowl, duri ng wh ich Ju sti n T im

be rlake expo sed

Jan et J ack so n’s bre ast

fo r a f rac tio n o f a

sec on d d uri ng the ir halftime show, an event that came to be known as “Nipplega te.” Frank Ahrens, The Pr ice for On -A ir I nd ece nc y G oe s Up, W ash . P os t (Jun e 8 , 2 00 6), av ail ab le at http:// www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar ticle/ 2006/06/07/AR2006060700287.html. The FCC im

posed a $550,000 fine, which was overturned by the Thir d Circuit. See CBS Corp. v. FC C, 53 5 F .3 d 1 67 , 2 09 (3d Ci r. 2 00 8). Af

ter the Su pre m e C ourt i ssu ed

its de cis ion

in F ox , it va cat ed the de cis ion

an d re m an de d to the Th ird C irc uit fo r re co ns ide rat ion

in l ight of

Fo x. Se e FCC v. CB S Corp., 129 S. Ct. 2176 (2009). The Third Circui t has yet t o issue a new deci sion. In 2003, the FCC imposed $440,000 in fines. In 2004, it imposed a record $8 million 3 in fines. See Former FCC Com missioners Br. at 10 n.6.

-9- Globe Awards, U2 band mem ber Bono exclaimed, upon receivi ng an award, “this is real ly,
rea lly , f uc kin g b ril liant. Re all y, rea lly , g reat.” In r e C om pla int s A ga ins t V ari ou s B roa dc ast Licensees Regar ding Their Airi ng of the “Golden Globe Awards” Program, 19 F.C.C. Rcd. 4975, at ¶ 3 n.4 (2004) (“Golden Globes Order ”). In res ponse to complaints filed afterthe incident, t he FCC declared, for the firsttime, that a single , nonliter al use of an explet ive (a socalled “flee ting explet ive”) coul d be actionabl y indecent. Finding that “ the ‘F-Word’ is one of 2 the m os t vu lgar, g rap hic , and expli cit de scr ipt ion s o f s exua l ac tiv ityin t he En gli shlan gu ag e, ” id. at ¶ 9, an d th ere fo re “ inh ere ntl y h as a sexua l co nn otatio n, ” id . at ¶ 8 , th e F CC co nc lud ed that the fl eet ing an d is olated

us e o f t he wo rd w as i rre lev ant an d o ve rru led all pri or d eci sio ns in whic h fleeting use of an exple tive was held pe r se not inde cent, id. at¶¶ 8-12. The FCC also found that the br oadcast was “pr ofane” within the meaning of Section 1464, abandoni ng its previ ous interpr etation of the t erm to m ean blasphemy. Id. at ¶¶ 13- 14. At the same time that the FCC expanded its enforcement efforts to incl ude even fleeting expletive s, the FCC also began iss uing record fines for indecency viol ations. While the 3 Co mm iss ion

ha d p rev iou sly

int erp ret ed

the m ax im

um fi ne s in the statut e as ap ply ingon a p er--10-

pro gram ba sis , it be gan tr eat ingeac h li cen see ’s b roa dc ast of the sam e p rog ram

as a sep arate violati on, thereby multiplying t he maxim um f ine the FCC could orderfor each instanc e of indecent spe ech. In addit ion, Congress amended Section 503(b) (2)(c) (ii) t o increase the maxim um f ine permitted by a factorof 10 – from $32,500 to $325,000– meaning that the fine for a single expl etive utt ered during a broadcast c ould easil y run into the tens of millions of dollars. See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(c) (iii)
. NBC Universal, Inc. (“NBC”), along wit h numerous other partie s, filed petit ions for
rec on sid eratio n o f t

he Go lde n G lob es O rde r be fo re the FC C, rai sin g s tat uto ry and co ns tit uti on al challenges to the new polic y. While the pe titions for reconsider ation were pendi ng, the FCC applied the Golden Globes Order poli cy in In Re Complaints Regarding Vari ous Televisi on Broadcasts Between February 2, 2002 and Marc h 8, 2005, 21 F.C.C. Rcd. 2664 (2006) (“O mnib us Or de r”) , whic h th e C om m iss ion stated wa s inten de d to “p rov ide su bs tantia l gu idanc e to b roa dc ast ers an d th e p ub lic ” ab out what w as c on sid ere d in de cent un de r th e n ewpo lic y. Id. at ¶ 2. In the Omnibus Order (which deal t with many m ore programs than are a t issue i n the present ca se), the Comm ission found four programs – the 2002 Billboar d Music Awards, the 20 03 Bi llb oard M us ic Awards , v ari ou s ep iso de s o f A BC ’s N YP D B lue , and CB S’ s T he Early Show – indecent and profane underthe Golden Globes st andard. All four programs involved what could be characte rized as flee ting explet ives. For ins tan ce, durin g th e 2 00 2 B ill bo ard Mu sic Aw ard s, Ch er, in an uns cri pte d m om ent f rom he r acceptance speech, stat ed: “People have been tell ing me I’m on the way out every ye ar, right ? So fu ck ‘em .” Id. at ¶

10 1. Si m ilarly , d

uri ng the 2 00 3 B ill bo ard

Mu sic Aw ard s, Ni co le R itc hie – on stage to pr esent an award wit h Paris Hilt on – made the following unscripted r emark: “HaveAB C o rig ina llyfi led a p eti tio n f

or r ev iew in t he D. C. Ci rcu it, wh ich

wa s th en 4 transferre d to this Courtand consolidat ed with the Fox/CBS petit ions for review. -11- you ever tri ed to get cow shitout of a Prada purse? It's not so fucking simple.” Id. at ¶112 n.164. Episodes of NYPD Blue were found indecent based on sever al insta nces of the word “bulls hit,” id. at ¶ 12 5, wh ile the CB S’ s T he EarlySh owwa s f ound ind ece nt o n th e b asi s o f a gu est ’s u se of the wo rd “ bu lls hitter ” to de scr ibe a f ell owco nte stant o n th e re ali ty T V s ho w, Survi vo r: Vanuatu, id. at ¶137. In finding these pr ograms indecent and profane, the FCC reaffirmed its decisi on in the Go lde n G lob es O rde r th at anyus e o f t he wo rd “ fu ck ” w as p res um pti ve ly i nd ece nt and

pro fane , id. at ¶ ¶ 10 2, 10 7, fu

rth er c on clu din g th at anyus e o f t he wo rd “ sh it” wa s al so pre sum pti ve ly ind ece nt and

pro fane , id . at ¶¶

13 8, 14 3. It a lso he ld t

hat th e f our br oa dc ast s in

qu est ion we re “patentl y offensive” because the materia l was explici t, shocking, and gr atuitous, not withstanding the fact thatthe explet ives were fleet ing and isola ted. Id. ¶¶106, 120, 131, 141. Fo x T ele vis ion

St ati on s, Inc . (“ Fo x” ), C BS Br oa dc ast ingInc . (“ CB S” ), and AB C I nc . (“A BC ”), as w ell as s ev era l ne tw ork af fi liates , f ile d p eti tio ns fo r re vie w o f t he Om nib us Or de r. 4 Th e F CC m ov ed

fo r a v olu

ntary r em an d, wh ich

we grante d, so that it

co uld have the op po rtunit

y to address pe titione rs’ arguments and could e nsure thatall li censees had a full opportunity t o be he ard be fo re the FC C i ssu ed

a f ina l de cis ion . A ft er s oli cit ingpu bli c co mm ents, the FC C i ssu ed a second orderon Novem ber 6, 2006. See In re Com plaints Regar ding Various Tele vision Broadcasts Between February 2, 2002 and Marc h 8, 2005, 21 F.C.C. Rcd. 13299 (2006) (“Remand Order”). In the Remand Order, the FCC reaffirmed its finding that the 2002 a nd 2003 Billboard Mus ic Awards were indec ent and profane. However, the FCC rever sed its findingThe Commission dismissed the complaints againstNYPD B lue because t he only person 5 who com plained of the material resided i n the Eastern time zone, where NYPD Blue aired during the “safe harbor ” period after10pm. Id. at ¶ 75. Intervenor s included NBC Universal, I nc., NBC Telem undo License Co., NBC 6 Television Affiliat es, FBC Television Affiliates, CBS Televis ion Networks Affiliation, and ABC Television Affiliat es Associati on. On remand f rom the Suprem e Court, the Centerfor Creative Vo ice s an d F utu

re o f M us ic C oa lit ion , whic h re pre sents t he art ist ic c om

m un ity , f ile d a m oti on to intervene , which we granted. -12- wi th r esp ect

to T he EarlySh owan d d ism iss ed the co m pla int ag ain st N YP D B lue on

pro ced ura l gro un ds
. 5 In the Remand Order, the FCC rejected t he petiti oners’ ar gument that non-lite ral uses of expletive s were not indec ent, reasoni ng that “any st rict di chotomy between expletives a nd de scr ipt ion s o r de pic tio ns of sexua l or ex cre tor y f un cti on s is art if

ici al and do es n ot m ak e se ns e in l ight of the fa ct that an

exple tiv e’s po we r to of

fe nd de riv es f rom its sexua l or

ex cre tor y meaning.” Id. at ¶ 23 (int ernal quota tion marks omitted). However, the Comm ission did “ not take the posi tion thatany occurrenc e of an expletive i s indecent orprofane under its rules,” allowing thatexpletive s that were “ integral ” to an art istic work oroccurring dur ing a “bona fide news intervi ew” might not run afoul of the indecency st andard. Id. at¶ 70 (emphasis added). As such, it re versed it s previous dec ision concerning the CBS’s The Early Show because the utteranc e of the word “bullshi tter” t ook place duri ng a bona fide news inter view. The Co mm iss ion

m ad e cl ear , h ow ev er, that “the re i s n o o utr ight ne ws ex em pti on fr om our in de cen cy rules.” I d. at ¶ 71. Pe tit ion ers an d inter

ve no rs, wh ich

co lle cti ve ly r ep res ented

all the m ajo r br oa dc ast 6 networks as well as local a ffiliates affected by the FCC’s inde cency policy ( hereinafter , the “Networks”), re turned to t his Court for revi ew of the Rem and Order, making a variety of-13-

adm ini str ati ve , s tat

uto ry, an d c on sti tut ion al argum ents. In a 2-1 de cis ion

(w ithJu dg e L ev al i n dissent) , we held that t he FCC’s indecency poli cy was arbitr ary and capri cious under t he APA. Fo x, 48 9 F .3 d at 44 7. W e re ach ed thi s d eci sio n b eca

us e w e b eli ev ed

that th e F CC ha d f

ail ed to ad eq uatel y e xp lai n whyit h ad ch an ge d it s n ear ly- 30 -ye ar p oli cyon fl eet ingexple tiv es. Id. at 458. Moreover, we note d that the FCC’s jus tificati on for the policy – t hat childr en could be harmed by hearing even one fleeti ng expletive (the so-c alled “firs t blow” theory) – bore “no rational connection t o the Comm ission’s actual pol icy,” because the FCC had not instit uted a blanket ban on expl etives. I d. Because we struck down the indecency poli cy on APA grounds, we declined to r each the constitut ional iss ues in the ca se. We noted, however, that we were “skept ical tha t the Co mm iss ion

[c ou ld] pro vid e a r eas on ed explanatio n f

or i ts ‘ fl eet ingexple tiv e’ r eg im e th at w ou ld pass consti tutional muster.” Id. at 462. We expressed sympathy for “the Networks’ cont ention that the FCC’s inde cency test[wa]s undefined, indiscernible , inconsist ent, and consequent ly,
un co ns tit uti on all y v ag ue .” Id. at 4 63 . W e w ere als o tr ou ble d th at the FC C’ s p oli cyap pe are d to permit it to “sanc tion speech ba sed on its subj ective vi ew of the m erit of thatspeech.” Id. at464. However, because itwas unnecessary for us t o reach them, we left those iss ues for another day. The FCC subsequently filed a writof certiorar i, which the Supreme Court grante d. In a 5-4 de cis ion , th e S up rem e C ourt r ev ers ed our A PArul ing , h old ingthat th e F CC ’s “f lee tin g e xp let ive ” p oli cywa s n ot arbi trary and cap ric iou s b eca

us e “[ t] he Co mm iss ion

co uld
rea so na bly co nc lud e th at the pe rva siv en ess of fo ul l an gu ag e, an d th e co ars en ingof pu bli c
en ter tai nm ent in

oth er m ed ia s uc h a s ca

ble , ju sti fy

m ore str ing ent re gu lat ion of bro ad cas t programs so as to give consc ientious pa rents a r elative ly safe haven for theirchildren.” 129 S.-14-

Ct . at 18 19 . H ow ev er, the Co urt de cli ne d to ad dre ss t

he Ne tw ork s’ c on sti tut ion al argum ents, “se e[ ing ] n o re aso n to ab an do n o ur u su al p roc ed ure s in a ru shto j ud gm ent w ith out a l ow er c ourt op ini on ,” id. , and

rem an de d f

or u s to co ns ide r th em

in t he fi rst ins tan ce. Thus , a ft er f

urt he r bri ef ing bythe parti es, int erv en ors , and am ici , w e n owtur

n to the qu est ion

that w e d ef

err ed in
our pr ev iou s d eci sio n –

wh eth er the FC C’ s in de cen cypo lic y v iol ate s th e F irs t A m en dm ent.

DI SC US SI ON I. It i s w ell -es tab lis he d th at i nd ece nt s pe ech is f ull y p rot ect ed

bythe Fi rst

Am en dm ent. Re no v. AC LU , 5 21 U. S. 84 4, 87 4-7 5 (1 99 7) ( “Whe re o bs cen ityis n ot i nv olv ed , . . . the fa ct that protecte d speech may be offensive to some does not justify its suppr ession.” (quot ing Carey v. Po pu lat ion

Se rvs . Int’l , 4 31 U. S. 67 8, 70 1 (1 97 7)) ). I n m os t co nte xts , th e S up rem e C ourt h as
co ns ide red

res tri cti on s o n in de cent sp eec h to be co nte nt- ba sed res tri cti on s su

bje ct t o s tri ct
scr uti ny . S ee Unit ed

St ate s v . P lay

bo y E ntm ' t G rou

p, 52 9 U .S . 8 03 , 8 13 (20 00 ). F or i ns tan ce, in Reno v. ACLU, the Suprem e Court struc k down the Communications Decency Act of 1996, finding that a pr ovision cri minalizing the knowing tr ansmission of indecent speech t hrough the internetwas unconstitut ionally vague and not narrowly t ailored. 521 U.S. at 882. I n Playboy, the Su pre m e C ourt c on fr onted

a p rov isi on

of the Te lec om

m un icatio ns Ac t of

19 96 that prohibite d cable tel evision oper ators from broadcasting se xual contentduring cert ain hours. While rec ognizing thattelevis ion “present s unique proble ms” not present in othermedium s, the Court held unequivoc ally thatthe rest ricti on was subject t o strictscrutiny, a nd struck itdown because scr ambling technology provided a less res trict ive means of protecting minors from indecent cont ent. 529 U.S. at 813, 827. Similarly, the Supr eme Court in Sable Communications-15-

of Ca lif orn ia, Inc . v . F CC de clared un co ns tit utio na l a p rov isi on

of the Co mm

un icatio ns Ac t th at prohibite d the trans mission of indecent comm ercial telephone messages, so-c alled “di al-a-porn,” fi nd ing that a t ota l ban w as n ot t he lea st r est

ric tiv e m ean s av ail ab le. 49 2 U .S . 1 15 , 1 31 (19 89 ). Br oa dc ast rad io and

tel ev isi on , h ow ev er, have alw ay s o ccu pie d a un iqu e p os iti on

wh enit
co m es t o F irs t A m en dm ent pr ote cti on . T he cat eg ori zat ion of bro ad cas tin g a s d if

fe rent f rom all other forms of com

munication pre-date s Pacifica. See, e.g., Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 36 7, 38 6 (1 96 9) ( “A lth ou ghbro ad cas tin g is cle arl y a m ed ium af fe cte d b y a

Fi rst Am endment interest, di fferences in the char acteri stics of new media justify differences in the Fi rs t A mend mentst an da rd s app li edto th em.” (i nt erna l c it at io n o mit te d) ). Andth e S up re me Court has conti nuously reaffirmed the distinc tion between br oadcasting a nd other forms of
m ed ia s inc e P aci fi ca. Se e R en o, 52 1 U .S . at 86 6-6 7; S ab le, 49 2 U .S . at 12 7. Ho we ve r, i t w as i n Pa cif ica that th e S up rem e C ourt g av e it s f ull est explanatio n f

or whyres tri cti on s o n b roa dc ast speech were subj ect to a l ower level of scrut iny, relyi ng on the twin pil lars of pervasi veness and accessibi lity to c hildren. 438 U.S. at 748- 49. While Pacifica did not speci fy what level of scrutiny applies to r estric tions on broadc ast speech, s ubsequent case s have applie d something akin to int ermediate scruti ny. See FCC v. League of W omen V oters, 468 U.S. 364, 380 (1984). The Networks argue tha t the world has changed since Pac ifica and the r easons underl ying the de cis ion

are no lon ge r va lid . In de ed , w e f ace a m ed ia l an ds cap e th at w ou ld h av e b een alm os t unrecognizabl e in 1978. Cable tel evision was st ill in i ts infancy. The Inte rnet was a proj ect run out of the Department of Defense with several hundr ed users. Not only di d Youtube, Facebook,
an d T wi tte r no t ex ist , b ut t he ir f ound ers we re e ith er s til l in dia pe rs o r no t ye t co nc eiv ed . In thi s environment, broadcast t elevisi on undoubtedly posses sed a “uniquel y pervasive pr esence in t he-16-

lives of all Americans.” Paci fica, 438 U.S. at 748. Th e sam e cann ot b e sa id t od ay . T he pa st t hir ty y ear s h as s een

anexplo sio n o f m ed ia
so urc es, an d b roa dc ast

tel ev isi on

ha s b eco m e o nly

on e v oic e in

the ch oru s. Ca

ble tel ev isi on

is almost as pervasive a s broadcast– almost 87 percent of households subs cribe to a cable or sat ell ite ser

vic e – an d m os t vi ew ers can

alt ern ate be tw een

bro ad cas t an d n on -br oa dc ast ch anne ls with a clic k of their remote control . See In re Annual Asses sment of the Status of Com petiti on in the Mar ket for the Delive ry of Video Programm ing, 24 FCC Rcd. 542, at ¶ 8 (2009). The int ern et, too , h as b eco m e o mnip res ent, o ff eri ng acc ess to e ve ryt

hin g f rom vir al v ide os to f

eat ure films and, yes, even broadcast t elevisi on programs. See In Re Implem entation of the Chil d Safe Viewing Act; Examination of Parental Contr ol Technologies for Video or Audio Programm ing, 24 F.C.C. Rcd. 11413, at ¶ 126 (2009) (“CSVA Report”) (“The number of suppliers of online vid eo an d a

ud io i s al m os t li m itl ess .” ). A s th e F CC its elf ack no wl ed ge s, “[ c] hil dre n to day li ve in a media environment that is dramatical ly different from the one in which theirparents and grandparent s grew up decades ago.” In the Mat ter of Empow ering Parent s and Protect ing Ch ild ren in an E vo lvi ngMed ia L an ds cap e, 24 F. C. C. Rc d. 13 17 1, at ¶ 11 (20 09 ). Mo re ov er , t ec hn ol og ic al ch an ge s h av e g iv enpa re nt s t he ab il it y t o d ec id e w hi ch pr og ra ms the y w ill pe rm it the ir c hil dre n to watch . E ve ry t ele vis ion , 1 3 in ch es o r large r, s old in t he Un ite d States si nce January 2000 cont ains a V-chip, whic h allows parent s to block progr ams based on a standardi zed rati ng system. 47 U.S.C. § 303(x). Moreover, since J une 11, 2009, when the Un ite d S tat es m ad e th e tr an sit ion to d igi tal tel ev isi on , any on e u sin g a dig ita l co nv ert er b oxals o ha s ac ces s to a V -ch ip. CS VARe po rt, 24 F. C. C. Rc d. 11 41 3, at ¶ 11 . In sh ort , th ere no w e xis ts
a w ayto b loc k p rog ram s th at c ontai n in de cent sp eec h in a w aythat w as n ot p os sib le i n 1 97 8. In-17-

fact, the exist ence of technology tha t allowed for househol d-by-household bl ocking of “unwanted” cable channels was one of the pr inciple di stincti ons between cable televis ion and broadcast media drawn by the Supr eme Court in Playboy. The Court explaine d: Th e o pti on

to b loc k re du ces the lik eli ho od , s o c on cer nin g to the Co urt

in P aci fi ca, that tr ad iti on al F irs t A m en dm ent sc rut iny wo uld de pri ve the Go ve rnm ent of all autho rity to ad dre ss t

his so rt o f p rob lem . T he co rol lar y, of co urs e, is that targe ted blocking enabl es the Government to support pa rental a uthority wit hout affecting the FirstAm endment interests of speake rs and willi ng listene rs – list eners for wh om , if the sp eec h is un

po pu lar or i nd ece nt, the pri va cyof the ir o wn

ho m es m ay be the op tim al p lac e o f r ece ipt
. Pl ay bo y, 52 9 U .S . at 81 5 (i nte rna l ci tat ion om itt ed ). W e can th ink

of no rea so n whythi s rat ion ale fo r ap ply ingstr ict scr uti nyin t he cas e o f c ab le t ele vis ion wo uld no t ap ply

wi th e qu al fo rce to b roa dc ast

tel ev isi on

in l ight of

the V- ch ip t echno log y th at i s n owav ail ab le. Ne ve rth ele ss, as w e st ate d in our pr ev iou s d eci sio n, we are bo un d b y S up rem e C ourt pre ced en t, r eg ard les s o f whe the r it ref lec ts t od ay ’s r eal iti es. Th e S up rem e C ourt m ayde cid e in du e co urs e to ov err

ule Pa cif ica an d s ub jec t sp eec h re str ict ion s in the bro ad cas t co nte xt t o s tri ct scrutiny. Thi s Court, however, is “ not at li berty to depa rt from binding Supreme Court precedent ‘unless and unt il [the] Court reint erpret[s]’ thatprecedent.” OneSimpleLoan v. U.S. S ec’y of Ed uc ., 49 6 F .3 d 1 97 , 2 08 (2d Ci r. 2 00 7) ( qu oti ng Ag os tin i v. Fe lto n, 52 1 U .S . 2 03 , 2 38 (19 97 )) (alter ations in or iginal) . The Networks, although t hey may wish it otherwise, see m to concede that we must evaluate t he FCC’s indecency poli cy under the framework establi shed by the Supreme Court in Pacifica. See ABC Television Affiliates Association Br. a t 12-13. Th ere is c on sid era

ble dis ag ree m ent am on g th e p art ies , h ow ev er, as t o what f ram ew ork Pa cif ica est ab lis he d. Th e F CC int erp ret s P aci fi ca a s p erm itt ingit t o e xe rci se b roa d re gu lat ory
autho rity to san cti on

ind ece nt s pe ech . In

its vie w, the Carli n m on olo gu e w as o nly the m os tAlthough, the Remand Order also found the broadca sts in quest ion “profane,” the FCC 7 has abandoned thatfinding for the purposes of thi s appeal and has relied s olely on it s finding of ind ece nc y. Se e F CC Br . at 24 n. 2. W e th ere fo re d o n ot a dd res s it s p rof

an ityfi nd ingfu

rth er. -18- ex tre m e ex am

ple of a large cat eg ory

of ind ece nt s pe ech

that th e F CC can

co ns tit uti on all y pro hib it. Th e N etw ork s, on the oth er h an d, vie w P aci fi ca a s es tab lis hin g th e li m it o f t he FC C’ s authorit y. In other words, t hey believe t hat only when indece nt speech ri ses to the l evel of “v erb al s ho ck

tre atm ent,” ex em

pli fi ed bythe Carli n m on olo gu e, can the FC C i m

po se a civ il forfeiture. Because Paci fica was an intent ional ly narrow opini on, it does not pr ovide us with a cle ar ans we r to thi s q

ue sti on . F ort

un ate ly, we do no t ne ed

to w ad e into t

he bram ble s in an attempt to answer itourselves. Forwe conclude that , regardle ss of where the outerlimit of the FC C’ s autho rity li es, the FC C’ s in de cen cypo lic y is un co ns tit uti on al b eca

us e it is i m pe rm iss ibl y vague. It is to this i ssue that we now turn. 7 II. It is a ba sic princ iple thata law or regul ation “‘i s void for vagueness i f its prohibit ions are not cl early defined.’ ” Piscotta no v. Murphy, 511 F.3d 247, 280 (2d Cir. 2007) ( quoting Gr ayne d v . C ityof

Ro ck fo rd, 40 8 U .S . 1 04 , 1 08 (19 72 )). A l awor r eg ulatio n is im pe rm iss ibl y vague if it does not“give the per son of ordinary int elligenc e a reasonabl e opportunit y to know what is prohibi ted.” Farre ll v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470, 485 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Grayned, 408 U. S. at 1 08 ). T he Fi rst

Am en dm ent pl ace s a s pe cia l bu rde n o n th e g ov ernm ent to en sure that restri ctions on spee ch are not i mperm issibly va gue. See Perez v. Hoblock, 368 F.3d 166, 175 n.5 (2d Ci r. 2 00 4) ( “[ A] lawor r eg ulatio n th at ‘ thr eat en s to inh ibi t th e ex erc ise of co ns tit uti on all y protecte d rights,’ such as the r ight of free speech, will generall y be subject t o a more stringent vagueness tes t.”) (quot ing Vill. of Hoffm an Estates v. Fl ipside, Hoffm an Estates, I nc., 455 U.S.-19-

48 9, 49 9 (1 98 2)) ). H ow ev er, “‘p erf ect clarity and

pre cis e g uid an ce h av e n ev er b een req uir ed
ev enof reg ulatio ns that re str ict

expre ssi ve act ivi ty. ’” Unit ed St ate s v . W ill iam s, 12 8 S . C t. 18 30 , 1 84 5 (2 00 8) ( qu oti ng W ard v. Ro ck Ag ain st R aci sm , 4 91 U. S. 78 1, 79 4 (1 98 9))
. The vagueness doctr ine serves several i mportant objectives in the Firs t Amendm ent
co nte xt. Fi rst , th e d oc tri ne is b ase d o n th e p rin cip le o f f air no tic e. “‘[ W ]e ass um e th at m anis fr ee t o s tee r be tw een

law fu l an d unlawf

ul c on du ct” an d w e g ive him no tic e o f what is pro hib ite d “so that he may act accor dingly.’” Farrell, 449 F.3d at485 (quoting Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108)
. Notice is par ticular ly important with res pect to cont ent-based s peech rest ricti ons “because of [their] obvious chil ling effect on free speech.” Reno, 521 U.S. at 872. Vague regulati ons “‘inevit ably lead ci tizens t o steer far widerof the unlawful zone than if the boundar ies of the fo rbi dd enare as w ere cle arl y m ark ed .’” Farre ll, 44 9 F .3 d at 48 5 (q uo tin g G rayne d, 40 8 U .S . at 10 9)) . S eco nd , th e v ag ue ne ss d oc tri ne is b ase d “ on the ne ed to e lim inate the im

pe rm iss ibl e ri sk of dis cri m inator

y e nf orc em ent.” Ge nti le v . S tat e B ar o f N ev ., 50 1 U .S . 1 03 0, 10 51 (19 91 ). “ A vague law impermissibly delegates basic poli cy matters to [government officials] for resolution on an ad hoc and subjec tive basi s . . . .” Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108-09 (e mphasis added). Specificity, on t he other hand, guar ds against s ubjectivi ty and discr iminatory enforcement. A. Th e N etw ork s ar gu e th at the FC C’ s in de cen cytes t is un co ns tit uti on all y v ag ue be cau se i t pro vid es n o c lear gu ide lin es a s to wh at i s co ve red an d th us fo rce s b roa dc ast ers to “ ste er f ar w ide r of the unlawful zone,” rathe r than ri sk massive fines. In support of their posi tion, the Networks rely on the Supr eme Court’s decision in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). Section 223(a ) of the Co mm

un icatio ns De cen cyAc t (“ CD A” ) pr oh ibi ted trans m itt ing“in de cent” m ate ria l to-20-

minors over the Inter net while sec tion 223(d) pr ohibited material that “in c ontext, depic ts or de scr ibe s, in t erm s p ate ntl y o ff en siv e as m eas ure d b y c ontem po rar y c om m un itystand ard s, sexual or exc retory ac tiviti es or organs.” Id. at 859-60 ( quoting 47 U.S.C. § 223(d)). In addi tion to f ind ing that th e st atute w as n ot n arr ow ly t ail ore d, the Co urt fo un d th e st atute unconstitut ionally vague because “the many am biguitie s concerning t he scope of its cover age render[ed] it probl ematic for purposes of the FirstAm endment.” Id. at 870. The Court found that th e st atute’ s u se o f t

he “g en era l, u

nd ef ine d te rm s ‘i nd ece nt’ an d ‘p ate ntl y o ff en siv e’ cover[ed] large amounts of nonpornographic material with serious educational or other val ue. Be cau se o f t

he “v ag ue co nto urs ” o f t

he reg ulatio n, the Co urt

he ld t hat “i t un qu est ion ab ly sil en ce[ d] so m e sp eak ers wh os e m ess ag es w ou ld b e entit led to c on sti tut ion al p rot ect ion .” Id. at 87 4. Th e N etw ork s ar gu e th at s inc e R en o f ound thi s in de cen cyreg ulatio n unc on sti tut ion all y vague, the FCC’s identi cally-worde d indecency te st for broadcast ing must fall as well. FC C argu es t

he op po sit e –

that R en o f

ore clo ses a v ag ue ne ss c ha lle ng e to the FC C’ s policy. In Reno, the government argued that t he CDA was “plainly consti tutional ” under the Pa cif ica de cis ion . Id . at 86 4. Th e S up rem e C ourt r eje cte d th is argum ent, d ist ing uis hin g P aci fi ca on the grounds tha t (1) the FCC is an expert agency t hat had been re gulating t he radio for decades; ( 2) the CDA was a categori cal ban on speec h while the FCC’s indece ncy regulat ion designated “ when – rather t han whether – itwould be permissible to ai r such a progr am”; (3) the ord er at is su e in

Pa cif ica wa s n ot p un iti ve ; an d (4 ) th e b roa dc ast m ed ium ha d tr ad iti on all y received t he most limited First Amendm ent protec tion. Id. at867. According to the FCC, because the Courtrefused to find Pacifica cont rolling of the c onstitut ional chal lenges to t he CDA, we m

ust find Reno equally i napplicabl e here.-21-

As anini tia l m att er, we rej ect the FC C’ s ar gum ent th at R en o f ore clo ses the Ne tw ork s’
va gu en ess ch all en ge . Whe n th e S up rem e C ourt d ist ing uis he d P aci fi ca i n R en o, it d id s o w ith
res pe ct t o “ the lev el o f F irs t A m en dm ent sc rut iny that sh ou ld b e ap pli ed

to t his m ed ium ,” no t to its an aly sis of

wh eth er the statut e w as u nc on sti tut ion all y v ag ue . Id . at 87 0. Br oa dc ast ers are
en tit led to t he sam e d eg ree of

clarity a s o the r sp eak ers , e ve n if res tri cti on s o n th eir

sp eec h are
su bje ct t o a low er l ev el o f s crutiny. It i s th e lang ua ge of the rul e, no t th e m ed ium in whic h it

is applied, tha t determines whether a law or regula tion is i mperm issibly va gue. W e al so rej ect

the Ne tw ork s’ argum ent th at R en o re qu ire s u s to fi nd the FC C’ s p oli cy
va gu e. To be sure, the CD A’ s d ef ini tio n o f i nd ece nc y w as a lm os t id entic al t o th e C om m iss ion ’s,
an d lang ua ge that is un co ns tit uti on all y v ag ue in o ne co nte xt c anno t su dd en ly b eco m e th e m od el of clarity i n another. However, unli ke in Reno, the FCC has further el aborated on t he definition of ind ece nc y in

the bro ad cas t co nte xt. Fo r ex am ple , th e F CC ha s o utl ine d three fa cto rs that it purportedl y uses to dete rmine whether a broadcastis patent ly offensive, Industry Guida nce, 16 F. C. C. Rc d. 79 99 , at ¶¶

7-8 , and ha s d ecl are d “ fu ck ” an d “ sh it” pre sum pti ve ly i nd ece nt, Omnibus Order, 2001 F.C.C. Rcd. 2664, at ¶¶ 102, 107. This additional guidance may not be sufficient to survi ve a vagueness cha llenge, but i t certa inly dist inguishes t he FCC policy from the one struck down in Reno. Fi na lly , w e re

jec t th e F CC ’s argum ent th at the Ne tw ork s’ v ag ue ne ss c ha lle ng e is fo rec los ed

byPa cif ica its elf . P aci fi ca, wh ich

did no t re ach the qu est ion

of wh eth er the FC C’ s policy was unconst itutiona lly vague, was an i ntentional ly narrow opini on predicat ed on the FCC’s “restrai ned” enforcement policy. Pacifica, 438 U.S. at 761 ( Powell J., concurr ing). The FC C’ s p oli cyha s n owch an ge d and we wo uld

be hard p res sed

to c harac ter ize it a s “r est rai ne d. ”Th e F CC als o argu es t hat th e D C C irc uit ’s A cti on fo r C hil dre n’s Te lev isi on cas es 8 pre clu de Ne tw ork s’ v ag ue ne ss c ha lle ng e, but th is argum ent f ail s f or t he sam e re aso n it s P aci fi ca arg um en t f

ail s. Th e D C C irc uit , li ke the Su pre m e C ourt, rel ied

sp eci fi cal ly o n th e F CC ’s restra ined policy i n reaching i ts decisi on. See Action for Children’ s Televisi on v. FCC, 852 F.2d 1332,1340 n.14 (D.C. Cir. 1988), supersede d by 58 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (en banc) ( “[T]he potential chilli ng effect of the FCC’s generic definiti on of indecency will be t empered by the Co mm iss ion ’s r est

rai ne d e nf

orc em ent po lic y. ”). Mo reo ve r, t o th e ex tent th e A CT cas es h eld that a vagueness chal lenge was precl uded by Pacifica, we are notbound by the DC Circuit and do not find it persuas ive. To the exte nt that ouropinion in Dial Information Services Corp. v. Th orn burgh , 9 38 F. 2d

15 35 , 1 54 1 (2 d C ir. 19 91 ), h eld that th e sam e d ef

ini tio n o f i nd ece nc y w as not imperm issibly va gue in the non-br oadcast cont ext, that hol ding was overrul ed by the Supreme Court’s decision i n Reno. -22- Thus , th e q

ue sti on s le ft

unres olv ed

byPa cif ica are no w s qu are ly b ef

ore us , a s th e S up rem e C ourt itself indi cated in i ts opinion above . See Fox, 129 S. Ct. at 1819 (“[W] hether [the FCC’s polic y] is unc on sti tut ion al, wi ll b e d ete rm ine d s oo n e no ug h, pe rha ps in t his ve ry c ase .” ). 8 B. Having concluded tha t neitherPacifica nor Reno res olves the ques tion, we must now de cid e whe the r th e F CC ’s i nd ece nc y p oli cypro vid es a dis cer nib le s tan dard b y whic h bro ad cas ter s can a ccu

rat ely pre dic t w hat sp eec h is pro hib ite d. Th e F CC set fo rthits ind ece nc y policy in i ts 2001 Industr y Guidance, in which the FCC explained that an i ndecency finding inv olv ed the fo llo wi ng tw o d ete rm inatio ns : (1 ) whe the r th e m ate ria l “d esc rib e[ s] or d ep ict [s ]
sexua l or ex cre tor y o rgans or a cti vit ies ”; and (2) wh eth er the bro ad cas t is “p ate ntl y o ff en siv e as measured by contemporary comm unity standa rds for the broadc ast medium .” Id. at ¶¶7-8. Un de r th e p oli cy , whe the r a b roa dc ast is p ate ntl y o ff

en siv e d ep en ds on

the fo llo wi ng thr ee factors: (1) “the expli citness orgraphic nature of the descri ption or depi ction”; ( 2) “whether t he material dwells on orrepeats a t length” t he descript ion or depict ion; and (3) “whether the
m ate ria l ap pe ars to p an de r or is u sed to t iti llate, or whe the r th e m ate ria ls a pp ear s to have be en-23-

pre sented fo r it s sh oc k v alu e. ” Id . at ¶ 1 0 (e m ph asi s ad de d). Si nc e 2 00 1, the FC C h as interpr eted its indecency poli cy in a number of decisions, incl uding Golden Globes Order a nd the ord ers on

rev iewhe re. Th e F CC arg ue s th at the ind ece nc y p oli cyin i ts I nd us tryGu idanc e, tog eth er w ithits
su bs eq ue nt d eci sio ns , g ive the bro ad cas ter s su ff ici ent no tic e as to what w ill be co ns ide red ind ece nt. Th e N etw ork s ar gu e th at the po lic y is im pe rm iss ibl y v ag ue an d th at the FC C’ s decisions i nterpret ing the poli cy only add to the confusion of what will be conside red indecent
. W e ag ree wi th t

he Ne tw ork s th at the ind ece nc y p oli cyis i m pe rm iss ibl y v ag ue . T he fi rst pro ble m ari ses in t

he FC C’ s d ete rm inatio n a s to wh ich wo rds or e xp res sio ns are patently of fe ns ive . F or i ns tan ce, wh ile the FC C c on clu de d th at “ bu lls hit ” in a “N YP D B lue ” ep iso de wa s patently offensive, i t concluded t hat “dick” a nd “dickhead” were not. Omnibus Order, 21 F.C.C. Rcd 2664, at ¶¶ 127-128. Othe r expleti ves such as “pi ssed off,” up yours,” “kiss my ass,” and “wiping his ass ” were also notfound to be patently offensive. I d. at ¶ 197. The Comm ission arg ue s th at i ts thre e-f

act or “ patentlyof

fe ns ive ” te st g ive s b roa dc ast ers fa ir n oti ce o f what it wi ll find indecent. However, in e ach of these cases , the Comm ission’s reasoning cons isted of repetit ion of one or more of the factors without any dis cussion of how it appli ed them. Thus, the word “bullshit ” is indece nt because i t is “vulga r, graphic a nd explicit ” while the words “d ick he ad ” w as n ot i nd ece nt b eca us e it wa s “n ot s uf

fi cie ntl y vulg ar, expli cit , o r gr ap hic .” Th is hardly gives broadcaste rs notice of how the Commission will apply the fact ors in the futur e. The English language is rife with cr eative ways of depict ing sexual orexcretory organs
or a cti vit ies , and

ev enif the FC C w ere ab le t o p rov ide a co m ple te l ist of all su chexpre ssi on s, new offensive and indecent words ar e invented eve ry day. For many years after Pacifica , the-24-

FC C d eci de d to fo cu s it s en fo rce m ent ef fo rts so lel y o n th e se ve n “ dir ty” wo rds in t

he Carli n
m on olo gu e. Se e In fi nit

y O rde r, 3 F. C. C. Rc d. 93 0, at ¶ 5 (1 98 7). Th is s trateg y h ad its lim itatio ns – it

m eant th at s om e in de cent sp eec h th at d id n ot e m plo y th ese sev enwo rds sli pp ed through the cr acks. However, it had t he advantage of providi ng broadcaste rs with a cl ear lis t of
wo rds that w ere pro hib ite d. No t surpr isi ng ly, in t he nin e y ear s b etw een

Pa cif ica an d th e F CC ’s ab an do nm ent of

thi s p oli cy , n ot a

sin gle en fo rce m ent ac tio n w as b rou gh t. T his co uld be be cau se we lived in a si mpler time before such foul language was comm on. Or, it could be t hat the FCC’s policy was sufficiently c lear tha t broadcast ers knew what was prohibi ted. The FCC argues that a flexibl e standard i s necessary precisel y because the l ist was not effective – broadcast ers simply found offensive ways of depicting sexual orexcretory organs or activit ies without us ing any of the seven words. I n other words, beca use the FCC cannot anticipa te how broadcast ers will a ttempt to circumvent the prohi bition on inde cent speech, t he FCC needs the maxim

um am ount of flexibilit y to be able t o decide what is indecent. The ob ser vatio n th at p eo ple wi ll a lw ay s f ind a w ayto s ub ve rt c en so rsh ip l aw s m ayexpo se a cer tai n futility i n the FCC’s crusade aga inst indec ent speech, butit does not pr ovide a just ification for implem enting a vague, i ndiscerni ble standar d. If the FCC cannot antici pate what will be
co ns ide red

ind ece nt u

nd er i ts p oli cy , th enit c anhardl y e xp ect bro ad cas ter s to do so . And wh ile the FC C c harac ter ize s al l br oa dc ast ers as c on sci ou sly try ingto p us h th e enve lop e o n what is permitted, m

uc h li ke a p etu lant te en ag er ang lin g f or a lat er c urf ew , th e N etw ork s h av e expre sse d a g oo d f aith d esi re t o c om

ply wi th t he FC C’ s in de cen cyreg im e. Th eysim ply wa nt t o k no w w ith
so m e d eg ree of

cer tai nty wh at the po lic y is so that th eycan co m ply wi th i t. T he Fi rst Am en dm en t re qu ire s n oth ingles s.-25-

The same vagueness problems plague the FCC’s presumptive prohibi tion on the words “fuck” and “shit” a nd the excepti ons theret o. Under the FCC’s currentpolicy, all variants of these two words ar e indecent unl ess one of two exceptions apply. The first i s the “bona fide news” exception, whic h the FCC has failed to expla in except t o say that i t is not abs olute. The
sec on d is the art ist ic n ece ssi ty e xc ep tio n, in whic h f lee tin g e xp let ive s ar e p erm iss ibl e if the y are “demonstrably essenti al to the na ture of an arti stic or e ducational work or essenti al to informing vie we rs o n a

m att er o f p ub lic im

po rtanc e. ” O mnib us Or de r, 2 1 F .C .C . R cd . 2 66 4, at ¶ 82 . In deciding whetherthis except ion applies , the FCC “consider[s] whether the materia l has any
so cia l, s cie nti fi c o r ar

tis tic va lue .” In r e C om

pla int s A ga ins t V ari ou s T ele vis ion Li cen see s Re ga rd in g T he irBr oa dc as t o n No ve mber11 , 2 00 4, of t he ABC Te le vi si onNe tw ork's Presentat ion of the Film “Saving Private Ryan”, 20 F.C.C. Rcd. 4507, at ¶ 11 (2005) (“Saving Pr ivate R yan” ). As we stated in ourprevious opini on: Al tho ug h th e C om

m iss ion ha s d ecl are d th at a ll v ari ants o f “ fu ck ” an d “ sh it” are presumptively indecentand profane, repeat ed use of those words in “Savi ng Pr ivate R yan, ” f or e xam ple , w as n eithe r in de cent no r pr of an e. An d whil e m

ult ipl e oc curre nc es o f e xp let ive s in “S av ingPr ivate R

yan” wa s n ot g rat

uit ou s, a si ng le occurrence of “fucking” in the Golden Globe Awards was “shoc king and gratuit ous.” Parental ratings a nd advisorie s were important in finding “Savi ng Pr ivate R yan” no t patentlyof

fe ns ive und er c ontem

po rar y c om m un itystand ard s, but irre levant in e valuating a rape scene i n another ficti onal movie. The use of num ero us exple tiv es w as “ int eg ral ” to a f ict ion al m ov ie a

bo ut w ar, but oc cas ion al expletive s spoken by real musicians were indecentand profane because t he ed uc ati on al p urp os e o f t

he do cum entar

y “ co uld have be enfu lf

ill ed an d a ll viewpoints expr essed without t he repeate d broadcast of exple tives.” The “S-Word” on The Early Show was not indecent beca use it was in t he context of a “ bona fide news inter view,” but “ther e is no outri ght news exemption from our indecency rul es.” Fo x, 48 9 F .3 d at 46 3 (i nte rna l ci tat ion s an d e m ph asi s o m itt ed ). T he re i s li ttl e rhym e o r re aso n to-26-

the se d eci sio ns an d b roa dc ast ers are lef t to gu ess wh eth er an e xp let ive wi ll b e d eem ed “integ ral ” to a program or whether the FCC will consider a par ticularbroadcast a “bona fide news int erv iew .” Th e F CC cre ate d th ese ex cep tio ns be caus e it rec og niz ed

that an outri gh t ban o n c ert ain words would raise gr ave First Amendm ent concerns . In the Omnibus Order, the FCC “recognize [d] the need for caution with re spect to complaints i mplicating the edit orial j udgment of bro ad cas t li cen see s in

pre sentin g n ew s an d p ub lic af fa irs pro gramm ing , a s th ese m att ers are at the core of the Fir st Amendm ent’s free pr ess guarant ee.” 21 F.C.C. Rcd. 2664, at ¶ 15. Li ke wi se, in a

pp lyi ng the “ar

tis tic ne ces sit

y” ex cep tio n, the FC C n ote d th at i t w as o bli gated to “p roc eed wi th d ue res pe ct f

or t he hig h v alu e o ur C on sti tut ion pla ces on

fr eed om an d c ho ice in what the people s ay and hear,” par ticular ly with respe ct to speec h that has “s ocial, sci entific or artist ic value.” Savi ng Private Ryan, 20 F.C.C. Rcd. 4507, at ¶ 11 (i nternal quot ation marks omitted). It is t hese same concerns thatinformed the FCC’s original “res trained” enforcement po lic y, wh ich

ha d th e ad

vanta ge of

pro hib iti ng the m os t eg reg iou s in stanc es o f i nd ece nt s pe ech while minim izing the bur den on protect ed speech. Th e F CC ’s c urr ent in de cen cypo lic y und ou bte dly giv es t he FC C m ore fl ex ibi lity, but th is flexibilit y comes at a price. The “ar tisti c necessit y” and “bona fide news” except ions allow the FC C t o d eci de , in

eac h c ase , whe the r th e F irst Am en dm ent is im pli cat ed . T he po lic y m ay
m ax im ize the am ount o f s pe ech that th e F CC can

pro hib it, but it

res ult s in a st an dard t

hat ev en the FC C c anno t ar

tic ulate o r ap ply

co ns ist ently . T hu s, it f

ound the us e o f t

he wo rd “ bu lls hitter ” on CBS’s The Early Show to be “shocking and gr atuitous” because itoccurred “dur ing a morning television i nterview,” Omnibus Order, 21 FCC Rcd 2664, at ¶ 141, before rever sing-27-

itself becaus e the broadca st was a “bona fide news int erview.” Remand Order, 21 FCC Rcd. 13299, at ¶ 68. In ot her words, the FCC reached di ametrically opposi te conclusi ons at different sta ge s o f t

he pro cee din gs fo r pr eci sel y th e sam e re aso n – that th e w ord

“b ull sh itt er” wa s utte red during a news progr am. And when Judge Leval asked dur ing oral ar gument if a program about the dangers of pre- marital sex designe d for teenagers would be permitted, the most that the FC C’ s lawy er c ou ld s aywa s “I su sp ect it w ou ld. ” W ithm ill ion s o f d oll ars an d c ore Fi rst Am endment values at stake , “I suspect ” is simply not good enough. W ith the FCC’s indi scernibl e standards come the risk that suc h standards wil l be
en fo rce d in

a d isc rim inator

y m anne r. T he va gu en ess do ctr ine is i nte nd ed , in part, to avo id t

hat ris k. If go ve rnm ent of

fi cia ls are p erm itt ed

to m ak e d eci sio ns on

an“ad ho c” b asi s, the re i s a r isk that those decisions wil l reflect t he officials’ subj ective bi ases. Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108-09. Thus, in the li censing conte xt, the Supreme Court has consis tently r ejected r egulations that give government officials too much discretion bec ause “such dis cretion ha s the potent ial for be co m ing a m ean s o f s up pre ssi ng a p art icu lar po int of vie w. ” F ors yth

Co unty, Ga . v . N ati on ali st Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 130 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also City of Lake wo od

v. Pl ain De ale r P ub . C o. , 4 86 U. S. 75 0, 75 8 (1 98 8) ( pe rm it s ch em e f aci all y unconstitut ional becaus e “post hoc ra tionali zations by t he licensi ng official and the use of shifting or il legiti mate criteria are far too eas y, making it difficult for courts t o determine in any parti cu lar cas e whe the r th e li cen so r is pe rm itt ingfavo rab le, an d s up pre ssi ng un favo rab le, expression” ). W e have no reason t o suspect tha t the FCC is using it s indecency pol icy as a means of
su pp res sin g p art icu lar

po int s o f v iew . B ut e ve n th e ri sk of su chsu bje cti ve , c ontent-b ase d-28-

decision- making raises grave conc erns under t he First Amendm ent. Take, for example, the disparat e treat ment of “Saving Private Ryan” and the documentary, “The Blues.” The FCC de cid ed that th e w ord s “f

uc k” an d “ sh it” we re i nte gra l to the “re ali sm an d im m ed iac y o f t

he fi lm experience for viewers” in “Savi ng Private Ryan,” butnot in“The Blues.” Fox, 489 F.3d at463. W e q ue ry h owfl eet ingexple tiv es c ou ld b e m ore ess entia l to the “re ali sm ” o f a fi cti on al m ov ie than to the “re ali sm ” o f i nte rvi ew s w ithrea l pe op le a bo ut r eal lif

e ev ents, an d it

is h ard no t to speculate that the FCC was simply more com fortable with t he themes in “Saving Privat e Ryan,”
a m ain str eam

m ov ie w itha f

am ili ar c ult

ura l m ili eu , th anit w as w ith“T he Bl ue s, ” whic h large ly pro fi led anoutsi de r ge nre of

m us ica l expe rie nc e. But ev enif the re w ere a p erf

ect ly b en ign

way of expla ini ng the se p art icu lar outco m es, no thi ng wo uld pre ve nt t he FC C f rom ap ply ingits ind ece nc y p oli cyin a

dis cri m inator

y m anne r in

the futur e. As the Su

pre m e C ourt e xp lai ne d in Forsyth: It i s n ot m ere ly t

he sp ora dic ab us e o f p ow er b y th e ce ns or b ut t he pe rva siv e threat inherent i n its very e xistence t hat consti tutes the danger to freedom of discussion. Ac co rdi ng ly, the su cce ss o f a fa cia l ch all en ge on

the gro un ds that an

ord inanc e delegates overly broad di screti on to the deci sionmaker rests not on whet her the adm ini str ato r ha s ex erc ise d h is d isc ret ion in a co nte nt- ba sed

m anne r, b ut whe the r there is anything in t he ordinance pr eventing him from doing so. 505 U.S. at 133 n.10 (internal quotati on marks and citations omitted)
. Th e F CC arg ue s th at i ts c ontex t-b ase d a pp roa chis c on sis tent w ith , in de ed ev enreq uir ed by, Pacifica. While Pacifica emphasized the importance of contextin regulat ing indecent broadcasts , see 438 U.S. at 750, it di d so in order t o emphasize the limited scope of its hol ding, finding that the particul ar “context ” of the Carlin monologue justified a n intrusi on on broadcaste rs right s under the Fir st Amendm ent. It does not follow that the FCC can justify any de cis ion to s an cti on

ind ece nt s pe ech

bycit ing“co nte xt. ” O f c ourse , c ontex t is alw ay s re lev ant,Th e F CC rec entlyfi led a le tte r pu

rsu ant to Ru le 2 8(j ) of

the Fe de ral Ru les of

Ap pe llate 9 Pr oc ed ure drawi ngour attentio n to cer tai n lang ua ge in t

he Su pre m e C ourt’ s re cent de cis ion in Hu ma nit ar ian La w Pro

jec t v. Ho lde r , N o. 08 -14 98 , 2 01 0 W L 2 47 10 55 (June 21 , 2 01 0). Gi ve n the entir ely different proce dural postur e in Hu ma nit ar ian La w Pro

jec t , w e co nc lud e th at i t is ina pp os ite to t

he iss ue s b ef

ore us he re. -29- and we do not mean to suggest otherwis e in this opi nion. But the FCC still must have discerni ble standar ds by which individua l contexts are judged. Th e F CC ass ure s u s th at i t w ill “b en d o ve r ba ck wards ” to pro tec t ed ito ria l ju dg m ent, at least i n the news context , but such assur ances are notsufficient given the record before us. Instead, t he FCC should bend over backwards t o create a standard t hat gives br oadcaster s the
no tic e th at i s re qu ire d b y th e F irs t A m en dm ent. 9 III . Under the curr ent policy, br oadcaster s must choose between not air ing or censor ing
co ntr ov ers ial pro gram s an d ri sk ingm ass ive fi ne s o r po ssi bly ev enlos s o f t

he ir l ice ns es, an d it

is not surpri sing which option t hey choose. Indeed, t here is ample evidence in the rec ord that t he FCC’s indecency polic y has chill ed protect ed speech. For instance , several CBS affiliates declined t o air the Peabody Award-winning “9/11” documentary, which contains r eal audio footage – i ncluding occas ional exple tives – of fi ref ighter s in the W orl d T rad e C enter

on Se pte m be r 11 th. Al tho ug h th e d oc um entar y h ad previously a ired twice without complaint, following the Golde n Globes Order affiliat es could no longer be sur e whether the e xpletives contained i n the documentary could be found indecent
. See Larry Neumeister, “Some CBS A ffiliates Worry over 9/11 Show,” Associat ed Press, Sept. 3, 20 06 . In ye t an oth er e xam

ple , a rad io s tat ion

can cel led

a p lanne d re ad ingof

To m W olf e’s no ve l I A m Ch arl ott e S imm on s, ba sed on a si ng le c om

pla int it r ece ive d a

bo ut t he “ad ult ” lang ua ge inNo r w ou ld s uc h a sy ste m be co stl ess fo r br oa dc ast ers . F or i ns tan ce, Fo x e sti m ate s th at 10 install ing an audio del ay system for all live pr ogramm ing would cost an es timated $16 million a year. Ind eed , th ere is e vid en ce i n th e re co rd t hat br oa dc ast ers have m ad e p ers onne l 11 de cis ion s o n th e b asi s o f t he FC C’ s in de cen cypo lic y. Fo r in stanc e, pu bli c ra dio pe rso na lity Sandra Loh was fired after a s ingle use of an exple tive as “a precauti onary measure to show the station ha d distanced i tself . . . in case the FCC investigat es.” Greg Braxton, “KCRW Fires Loh Ov er O bs cen ity ,” L. A. Ti m es ( Mar . 4 , 2 00 4), av ail ab le at http:// articl es.lati mes.com /2004/mar/04/ local/me-loh4. -30- the book, because t he stati on feared FCC action. When the program was reinstated t wo weeks later, t he stati on decided thatit could onl y safely air t he program during the “safe harbor” period. The FCC’s applicati on of its policy t o live broadc asts cre ates an even more profound ch ill ing ef

fe ct. In t he cas e o f t

he 20 03 Bi llb oard M us ic Awards bro ad cas ts, Fo x h ad anau dio delay syste m in place to bleep fleeti ng expletive s. It als o pre-cle ared the sc ripts of the pre senter s. Ri tch ie, ho we ve r, d ep art ed fr om he r sc rip t an d u sed

thr ee e xp let ive s in

rap id sequence. While the person e mployed to m onitor and bl eep expleti ves was bleeping t he first, the fo llo wi ng tw o s lip pe d throu gh . E ve n e lab orat e p rec autio ns wi ll n ot p rot ect a b roa dc ast er a ga ins t such occurre nces. The FCC argues that Fox shoul d simply im plement a m ore effective scr eening sy ste m , b ut, sh ort

of giv ingup liv e b roa dc ast ingalt og eth er, no sy ste m wi ll e ve r be on e hun dre d percent effective
. Instead, Fox may decide not to a sk individual s with a hist ory of using 10 profanity to pre sent at i ts awards shows. But, of course, this wil l not preventsomeone who 11 wi ns anaw ard

– s uc h a s C he r or

Bo no – f rom us ingfl eet ingexple tiv es. In f act , th e o nly

way that F oxcan

be su re that it wo n’t be san cti on ed

bythe FC C i s b y re fu sin g to air the bro ad cas t liv e. This chill ing effect extends to ne ws and public affairs progr amm ing as well.Nor are these concerns unfounded. The Comm ission currently has several pe nding 12 investiga tions concer ning expleti ves utter ed during li ve news and sports pr ogramm ing. For ins tan ce, af

ter a su rpr ise wi n a ga ins t N otr e D am e, the Un ive rsi ty o f P itt sb urg h q uarte rba ck

stated that he was “so fucking pr oud of our football team” on live tel evision. The FCC’s invest igation into this incident i s ongoing. -31- Br oa dc ast ers m aywe ll d eci de no t to inv ite co ntr ov ers ial gu est s o n to the ir p rog ram s f or f ear that
anun expe cte d f

lee tin g e xp let ive wi ll r esu lt i n f ine s. Th e F CC po int s to its “b on a f ide ne ws ”
ex cep tio n to sh owthat su chfe ars wo uld be un fo un de d. But th e F CC ha s m ad e cl ear that it considers t he decision t o apply this e xception a matter wit hin its di screti on. Otherwise, why not sim ply m ak e an outri gh t ne ws ex cep tio n? D uri ng the pre vio us pro cee din gs be fo re this Co urt , am icu s cu ria e g av e th e ex am

ple of a lo cal statio n in

Ve rm ont th at r ef

us ed to a ir a po lit ica l de bate be cau se o ne of

the loc al p oli tic ian s invo lve d h ad pre vio us ly u sed

exple tiv es o n a ir. Th e re co rd
co nta ins oth er e xam

ple s o f l oc al s tat ion s th at h av e f org on e li ve pro gramm ingin o rde r to av oid fi ne s. Fo r in stanc e, Ph oe nixTVstatio ns dro pp ed liv e co ve rag e o f a

m em ori al s erv ice fo r P at Ti llm an , th e f

orm er f oo tba ll s tar

kil led in A fg hanis tan , b eca

us e o f l an gu ag e u sed

byTi lli m an ’s fam ilym em

be rs t o e xp res s th eir

gri ef . Astatio n in

Mo os ic, Pe nn sy lvania

su bm itt ed anaf fi davit statin g th at i n th e w ak e o f t he FC C’ s n ewpo licy , it

ha d d eci de d to no lon ge r pr ov ide liv e, dir ect
to- air co ve rag e o f n ew s ev ents “ un les s th eyaf fe ct m att ers of

pu bli c sa fe ty o r co nv en ien ce. ” If 12 the FC C’ s p oli cyis a llo we d to rem ain in p lac e, the re w ill un do ub ted ly b e co untle ss o the r situati ons where broadcas ters will exercise their edi torial judgment and decline to pur sue contentious people or subj ects, or wil l eschew live programm ing altoget her, in orderto avoid the FC C’ s f ine s. Th is c hil l re ach es s pe ech at the he art

of the Fi rst Am en dm ent. Th e ch ill of

pro tec ted sp eec h h as e ve n e xte nd ed to p rog ram s th at c ontai n n o e xp let ive s, but w hic h c ontai n re fe ren ce t o o r di scu ssi on of sex , s exua l or gans , o r ex cre tio n. Fo r in stanc e,-32-

Fox decided not to r e-broadcas t an episode of “That 70s Show” that dealtwith masturbation, even though it ne ither depi cted the ac t or discus sed it in s pecific ter ms. The episode
su bs eq ue ntl y w on

anaw ard fr om the Ka ise r F am ilyFo un datio n f or i ts h on est

an d a ccu rat e de pic tio n o f a

sexua l he alth is su e. Si m ilarly , an e pis od e o f “ Ho us e” w as r e-written af ter
co nc ern s th at o ne of

the ch ara cte r’s str

ug gle s w ithps yc hiatri c is su es r elated to h is s exua lity would be considere d indecent by t he FCC. As these examples illus trate, t he absence of reli able guidance in the FCC’s standar ds ch ill s a v ast

am ount o f p rot ect ed

sp eec h d eal ingwi th s om e o f t he m os t im

po rtant and

un ive rsa l themes in art and li teratur e. Sex and the magnetic power of sexual at tracti on are surel y among the most predominant themes in the study of humanity since the Troja n W ar. The digest ive sy ste m an d e xc ret ion

are als o im

po rtant area s o f h

um anatt entio n. By

pro hib iti ng all “p ate ntl y of fe ns ive ” re fe ren ces to s ex , s exua l or gans , and ex cre tio n w ith out gi vin g a de qu ate gu idanc e as to what “patentl y offensive” means, the FCC ef fectively chi lls speec h, because broadc asters ha ve
no way o f k

no wi ng wh at the FC C w ill fi nd of fe ns ive . T o p lac e any d isc us sio n o f t he se v ast top ics at t he bro ad cas ter ’s p eri l ha s th e ef fe ct o f p rom oti ng wi de sel f- cen so rsh ip o f v alu ab le
m ate ria l w hic h s ho uld

be co m ple tel y p rot ect ed

un de r th e F irs t A m en dm ent. IV. For the foregoing re asons, we stri ke down the FCC’s indecency poli cy. We do not
su gg est that th e F CC co uld

no t cr eat e a c on sti tut ion al p oli cy . W e h old on ly t hat th e F CC ’s current pol icy fails const itutiona l scruti ny. The petiti on for review is her eby GRANTE D.