case
ahmd54
case.docxSame format just change wording for what is listed to be changed below.
Fed. Comm. Commission v. Fox TV Stations
Facts about Case: (change the wording of the facts)
In 2004, the Federal Communications Commission said that TV stations could be fined for indecency violations in cases when a vulgarity was broadcast during a live program. That happened on Fox in 2002 and 2003 when Cher and Nicole Richie cursed during award shows and were not bleeped. The FCC never actually fined Fox, but the network took issue with the regulatory agency setting the stage for future fines and challenged the fleeting-expletive rules. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the FCC's rules were "unconstitutionally vague" and had a "chilling effect."
Issue: (change the wording of the issue)
Did the court of appeals err in finding the FCC's indecency policy unconstitutionally vague in its entirety?
Whether the Federal Communications Commission’s indecency standard is overly vague and runs afoul of the First and Fifth Amendments.
Rule: (Keep it as it is)
“Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined . . . or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
Application: (change the wording of the analysis)
In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Federal Communication Commission’s policy on the use of unrepeated expletives during television broadcasts is unconstitutionally vague, violating the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution.
Conclusion (change the wording of the conclusion)
Yes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for seven members of the court, vacated the lower judgment and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held that the FCC's standards, as applied to the broadcasts in this case, were vague. The FCC did not give proper notice to broadcasters that they would be fined for fleeting expletives, so the practice violated due process. However, Justice Kennedy carefully noted that the Court did not decide whether the practice violated the First Amendment or that the indecency policy itself was unconstitutional. Only the way the policy was applied in this case was unconstitutionally vague. The FCC is free to modify its policy in light of this decision.
