FCC Takes Public Comments on Controversial 'Indecency' Policy
Maybe it's time for a little free speech
Just as he is about to exit, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski is setting up a question that will be left to his successor: Just how should the agency deal with a backlog of indecency complaints.
Given the propensity for watchdog groups to complain that the agency is too lax, and broadcasters to sue the FCC for being too vague, it's doubtful that any new policy will be anything other than a can of worms.
On April 1, the agency opened the docket on whether to adopt a policy where it investigates only "egregious" cases of indecency, a seeming change from a policy adopted in 2004 that sanctioned even "fleeting" swear words as well as nudity. The problem with the latter is that the networks found little rhyme or reason to the rulings, and twice challenged the the agency at the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the decisions or to strip the FCC's authority to police content on the airwaves altogether.
Hide Comments (0)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?