Published on:

By and

In its various incarnations — CONELRAD, the Emergency Broadcast System, the Emergency Alert System, and soon, the EAS CAP system — America’s public warning system has much in common with a vintage automobile that has been taken out of the garage only for short trips. In those short trips (mostly state and local tests and alerts), it has performed adequately, but until this week’s national test, we never had a chance to take it out on the open road and see what it could really do.

Now that the first national EAS test is behind us, we know that the system isn’t broken, but that it definitely will benefit from this breaking in process. That process, which necessarily includes extensive analysis of this week’s test, will reveal numerous ways in which the system can be tweaked for better and more reliable performance under open road conditions. The basic system appears to have run fine; the message got out to the public (though obviously better in some locations than others).

Unlike the relative simplicity of an automobile, however, the EAS system is one of the largest pieces of machinery in the world, having immense geographic scope and a staggering number of components. Getting all of those components to function smoothly together is a complex task that requires much more effort than the typical automotive tune up. Its performance grows more impressive when you remember that most of those components are independently (and privately) owned and operated, and are not supported by federal funding. The EAS system is perhaps the ultimate public-private partnership.

While it is too early to provide a detailed assessment of the areas where the functioning of the system went astray, as we indicated previously, the purpose of the test was to help FEMA, the FCC, and EAS Participants determine the reliability of the EAS system and where it needs improvement, and the test certainly accomplished that. There were a number of issues uncovered with regard to cable and satellite alerts, as well as individual radio and television stations in Oregon and a number of other locations apparently not receiving the test, excessive background audio noise in the test message, some television stations receiving video but no audio, and header codes apparently being sent twice. While the press has understandably focused on areas where problems arose, initial reports seem to indicate that the alert was heard in the vast majority of locations, and that the next area to focus on is ensuring that the content of the alert itself is clear and understandable to the public.

According to the FCC, it and FEMA will now use the results of the test “to identify gaps and generate a comprehensive set of data to help strengthen our ability to communicate during real emergencies. Based on preliminary data, media outlets in large portions of the country successfully received the test message, but it wasn’t received by some viewers or listeners. We are currently in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and will reach a conclusion when that process is complete.”

EAS Participants should remember that just because the national test is over, their work is not done. As we discussed in October, the FCC is encouraging online reporting of each Participant’s test results as soon as possible and has mandated that the information be submitted to the FCC no later than December 27, 2011 (either online or on paper).

In the meantime, that noise you hear coming from the nation’s garage will be thousands of EAS Participants, EAS equipment manufacturers, and government officials tuning and tweaking the EAS system for its next run on the open road.

Published on:

By

FEMA has indicated that the audio of the November 9th national EAS test is being shortened from its original two and a half minute length to thirty seconds. Originally, the government had indicated the entire test would run as long as three and a half minutes, but current indications are that the shortened audio will reduce the length of the overall EAS test to 45-60 seconds.

While FEMA’s reasoning behind the change is not currently known, I note that the National Cable and Telecommunications Association filed a request with FEMA on October 21, 2011 seeking to delay the national test because many cable systems are not ready for it. The problem is that because the proposed test will use the Presidential Emergency Action Notification code, the video will state that “This is an Emergency Action Notification,” and will not give any indication that it is a test. While the audio will make clear that it is a test, those unable to hear the audio (for example, the deaf/hard of hearing or people in a bar where the TV is on but the sound is turned down) could reasonably conclude that an actual emergency is occurring.

While TV broadcasters will generally be inserting a visual crawl indicating that it is only a test, many cable systems do not have that technical capability. NCTA has therefore asked that the test be delayed while the cable industry explores how best technically to insert a visual message over the EAS test assuring viewers that it is indeed only a test.

Given the massive amount of effort that has gone into setting up and preparing for this first ever national EAS test, as well as in notifying the public that there will be a test, delaying it could generate more confusion than just proceeding with the test. It is therefore possible that FEMA’s decision to shorten the test is a pragmatic compromise between either delaying the test or scaring the daylights out of the deaf and hard of hearing community. Presumably, a shorter message is less likely to cause confusion, as it won’t seem as unusual as an emergency message that runs for over three minutes. At a minimum, it will shorten the period of panic, as those watching will see normal programming resume in less than a minute.

Whether the system can be fully tested by the shorter message is already being debated, and some confusion is now unavoidable, given that that the public and first responders have already been told to expect and plan for a test that runs well over three minutes. At the moment, FEMA is trying to get the word out about the shortened test, hoping to reduce that confusion before November 9th arrives.

UPDATE (1:25pm): The FCC has released a new EAS Handbook in light of the shortened test. The Public Notice announcing the new handbook can be found here, and the new EAS Handbook can be found here. The Public Notice indicates that this new version supersedes the version released last week and should be used for all matters related to the November 9 National EAS Test.

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • Cable Operator Subject to $25,000 Fine for EAS and Signal Leakage Violations
  • Late-filed Renewals Garner $26,000 Fine

Interfering Signal Leakage Proves Costly for Florida Cable Television Operator

The FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) to the operator of a Florida cable television system for multiple violations of the FCC’s rules. The NAL proposes a $25,000 forfeiture for the system based upon violation of the FCC’s cable signal leakage standards, failure to submit the required registration form to the FCC, and failure to maintain operational Emergency Alert System (“EAS”) equipment.

During a 2011 inspection of the system, agents from the Tampa Office of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau discovered extensive signal leakage. In order to protect aeronautical frequencies from interference, Sections 76.605 and 76.611 of the FCC’s Rules establish a maximum cable signal leakage standard of 20 microvolts per meter (“µV/m”) for any point in the system and a maximum Cumulative Leak Index (“CLI”) of 64. Inspection of the cable system revealed twenty signal leaks, fourteen of which were over 100 µV/m, with the highest measuring 1,023 µV/m. In addition, the system’s CLI measured 64.88, exceeding the maximum permitted level of 64. The operator also acknowledged the system had not maintained cable leakage logs or performed routine maintenance as required by the FCC. The base forfeiture for these violations is $8,000.

The FCC also found two other violations. In 2010, FCC agents discovered the cable system had not filed its required registration statement with the FCC. In the 2011 inspection, the owner admitted the station had not submitted the required form, and, as of the date of the NAL, had still not filed the form. Section 76.1801 of the FCC’s Rules specifies a base forfeiture of $3,000 for failing to file required forms. Since the system had still not submitted the form more than a year after being instructed to do so, the FCC ordered an upward adjustment of the fine by $1,500.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a decision that may cause a fair amount of chaos for program producers, television stations, and cable systems, the FCC yesterday released an Order overturning 298 previously granted closed captioning waivers. According to the Order, the FCC granted only three temporary waivers in the period between 1996, when the captioning requirement was created by Congress, and 2005. However, in 2006, the FCC suddenly granted 303 permanent waivers of the captioning requirement. While the Order indicates that the FCC has received an additional 500 waiver requests since that time, it does not indicate whether any of these later requests have been acted on. It therefore appears that the 298 captioning waivers that were overturned represent the great majority of all outstanding waivers.

Of the 303 waivers granted in 2006, 298 were challenged by a consortium of organizations representing the deaf and hard of hearing. Those appeals had been pending at the FCC for just over five years. During that time, Congress modified the captioning requirements in the Communications Act when it adopted the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (the “CVAA”). The three significant captioning changes made by the CVAA are (1) the change of the term “undue burden” as the standard for captioning waivers to the term “economically burdensome”, (2) the imposition of a six month time limit (with exceptions) for the FCC to process captioning waiver requests, and (3) the codification in the statute of the FCC’s current practice of considering programming exempt from captioning while a waiver request is pending.

It appears that the need to modify its rules to incorporate these changes refocused the FCC’s attention on the outstanding waiver appeals, leading to the sudden action on the appeals after five years. Ultimately, the FCC concluded that the waivers should not have been granted, as they improperly relied on (1) the noncommercial nature/lack of remunerative value of the programming, (2) the program producers’ nonprofit status, (3) the presumption that waivers would be granted where “the provision of closed captions would curtail other activities important to [the producers’] mission”, (4) the grant of permanent waivers where temporary waivers would be more appropriate, and (5) the failure of the waiver grants “to consider whether petitioners solicited captioning assistance from their video programming distributors.”

This last factor is particular important for TV stations and cable systems. The FCC formally announced in the Order that because these program distributors are the parties actually responsible for ensuring that programming is captioned, “soliciting funds from these responsible entities is necessary to meeting one’s captioning obligations, and … evidence of such solicitation is required before a petitioner may qualify for a captioning exemption.” As a result, these local programming outlets can expect to be solicited by program producers in a very formal way for the funds necessary to caption their programming.

The Order lists the waiver recipients whose waivers have been revoked, and requires that they either file a new request for a waiver by January 18, 2012, or be in compliance with the FCC’s closed captioning rules by January 19, 2012. Those filing a new waiver request will be required to submit current documentation demonstrating that providing closed captions would be economically burdensome given (1) the nature and cost of the closed captioning difficulty/expense, (2) the impact on the operation of the program provider/owner, (3) the financial resources of the program provider/owner, and (4) the type of operations of the program provider/owner, as well as any other factors the petitioner thinks relevant to the request (including alternatives proposed by the petitioner as a reasonable substitute for closed captioning).

It doesn’t take much reading between the lines of the Order to conclude that closed captioning waivers are going to be much more difficult to obtain in the future. Given that 100% of English and Spanish broadcast TV programming must now be captioned (unless it falls into one of the FCC’s categorical exemptions), the FCC’s decision may impose significant hardship on many program producers and the TV stations that carry their programming. At a minimum, the producers whose waivers have been revoked will need to go through the waiver request process again. If their request is not granted, then they, along with program producers who cannot make the necessary waiver showing, will need to begin captioning their programming or cease production and/or distribution of that programming to media outlets governed by the FCC’s captioning rules.

Finally, because of the captioning changes made by the CVAA referenced above, yesterday’s Order also includes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which the FCC seeks comments on how to interpret Congress’s change of the waiver standard language from “undue burden” to “economically burdensome.” The FCC indicates that its tentative conclusion is that Congress did not intend the language change to have a substantive effect upon waiver requests, particularly given that other language in the Communications Act relating to captioning waivers was not changed by the CVAA. The FCC’s request for comments focuses on whether this tentative conclusion is accurate. Those program producers whose waivers were revoked will want to consider submitting comments in this rulemaking, as it will likely end up determining the standard by which any new waiver requests will be judged.

Published on:

By

Both TV and radio stations are learning that medical marijuana can give you a bad headache. However, everyone, including the Department of Justice, currently seems uncertain as to the long-term prognosis for stations that aired medical marijuana ads. As I wrote here last week, leading to a number of articles on the issue in trade press and around the web this week, it is clear that the DOJ has abandoned any pretense of taking a restrained approach to the natural conflict between state laws permitting medical marijuana and federal laws prohibiting it as an illegal drug. The question I had raised back in May, and focused on in last week’s post, was whether the threat to media running medical marijuana ads had moved from theoretical to imminent.

When the DOJ sent letters to the landlords of medical marijuana dispensaries last week telling them to evict their dispensary tenants or risk imprisonment, forfeiture of their buildings and confiscation of all rent collected from those dispensaries, it became clear that media collecting ad revenues for promoting the sale of medical marijuana could just as easily be in the DOJ’s crosshairs. What I found interesting about the reaction to last week’s post, however, was an assumption by many that this is a radio-only issue, and that television stations “did not inhale” medical marijuana ad revenues these past few years. However, the first (and as far as I know, only) medical marijuana complaint pending at the FCC was lodged against a large market network TV affiliate.

The DOJ apparently doesn’t see it as a radio-only matter either. When the issue was raised by a reporter this week, U.S Attorney Laura Duffy caused a stir by announcing that her next target is indeed medical marijuana advertising, noting that she has been “hearing radio and seeing TV advertising” promoting the drug.

The good news for media in general is that, unlike the FCC, the DOJ is less concerned about past conduct, and more interested in reducing future medical marijuana advertising (and thereby reducing future medical marijuana sales). It was therefore in character when Ms. Duffy announced that her first step would be notifying media “that they are in violation of federal law.” The DOJ followed a similar approach in 2003 when it sent letters to broadcasters and other media threatening prosecution of those running ads for gambling websites on grounds that those media outlets were “aiding and abetting” the illegal activities. You can read a copy of the letter here. I note with a bit of irony that one of the arguments made by the DOJ in the 2003 letter is that stations should not be airing ads for online gambling “since, presumably, they would not run advertisements for illegal narcotics sales.”

While the DOJ later pursued some media companies for running ads for online gambling, including seizing revenue received from those ads, its efforts were principally aimed at making an example of those who failed to “take the hint” from the DOJ’s 2003 letter. It seems likely that the DOJ will follow a similar path with regard to medical marijuana ads, focusing primarily on putting an end to the airing of such ads as opposed to pursuing hundreds of legal actions against those who previously aired them.

Also providing at least a small sense of relief for media are more recent statements from the office of Ben Wagner, one of (along with Laura Duffy) California’s four U.S. Attorneys, indicating that he is not currently focusing on medical marijuana advertising. While that could obviously change at any time, it does suggest that any action against media for medical marijuana advertising is at the discretion of the individual U.S. Attorney, and not an objective of the DOJ as a whole.

If the DOJ remains true to its past practices, then broadcasters and other media can likely avoid becoming a target for legal action by ceasing to air medical marijuana ads now. Pursuing individual media outlets is resource-intensive for the DOJ, and raises some thorny legal issues. More to the point, there is little to be accomplished by such actions if media outlets have already stopped airing the ads.

With regard to the FCC, however, broadcasters are not so lucky. Unlike the DOJ, which can choose whether to pursue an action against a media outlet, the FCC will likely be forced to address the issue both in the context of adjudicating complaints against broadcasters for airing medical marijuana ads, and in considering whether a station’s past performance merits renewal of its broadcast license. Given the classification of marijuana as an illegal drug under federal law, and particularly in light of the government’s other attacks on components of the medical marijuana industry, it will be difficult for the FCC to avoid confronting the issue, even where a station stopped airing the ads years ago. As a result, print and online media outlets may be able to get the marijuana advertising out of their systems fairly quickly, but broadcasters could be suffering legal flashbacks for years to come.

Published on:

By

In what became one of our more heavily circulated posts, I wrote a piece back in early May entitled “Will Marijuana Ads Make License Renewals Go Up in Smoke?” It noted that the Department of Justice was showing signs of abandoning its “live and let live” policy toward medical marijuana producers and dispensaries operating in compliance with state laws.

Because advertising by such dispensaries had become a significant revenue source for broadcasters in states where medical marijuana was legalized, the DOJ’s about-face placed broadcasters in an awkward position. While medical marijuana may be legal under state law, it has never been legal under federal law. This means that broadcast stations, which the law deems to be engaged in an interstate activity, and whose livelihood depends on license renewal by the FCC, are an easy target for a Federal Government intent upon suppressing the sale of medical marijuana. The takeaway from my post was that stations should think long and hard before accepting medical marijuana ads.

It became clear this morning that it was time to do an update on the subject when an article from the Denver Post came across my desk noting that “the last bank in Colorado to openly work with the medical-marijuana industry — Colorado Springs State Bank — officially closed down the accounts of dispensaries and others in the state’s legal marijuana business over concerns about working with companies that are, by definition, breaking federal law.” Like broadcasters, the banking industry is heavily regulated by the Federal Government, and it appears that Colorado bankers have collectively concluded that, despite the large sums of money involved, it is not worth the risk of dealing with medical marijuana dispensaries and incurring the wrath of the feds.

That development alone should concern broadcasters airing medical marijuana ads. However, late today, word got out that the DOJ, through its four U.S. Attorneys in California, sent letters threatening medical marijuana dispensaries in California with criminal charges and confiscation of their property if they do not shut down within 45 days. Of particular interest to broadcasters (and any other media running medical marijuana ads), these letters were sent not just to dispensaries, but to their landlords, effectively telling the landlords to evict their tenant or risk imprisonment, forfeiture of their building and confiscation of all rent collected for the period the dispensary was in business.

The DOJ’s willingness to threaten those who are not engaged in the sale of medical marijuana, but who merely provide services to those who are, should raise alarm bells for media everywhere. If landlords who collect rent from medical marijuana dispensaries are at risk, media that collect ad revenues from promoting the sale of medical marijuana could just as easily be in the DOJ’s crosshairs. More to the point, the Federal Government is in a much better position to exercise leverage over the livelihoods of broadcasters than over California property owners not engaged in any form of interstate activity.

Colorado bankers have apparently already reached a similar conclusion, and the DOJ’s stepped-up campaign in California against medical marijuana removes any doubt for broadcasters and other media as to which way the federal winds are now blowing. You can expect a heated legal and political battle between the states and the Federal Government over the DOJ’s efforts to nullify state medical marijuana laws. While that battle ensues, broadcasters and other media will want to do their best to stay out of the line of fire.

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • Low Power Broadcaster’s Defiance Results in $7,000 Upward Adjustment
  • Unauthorized Post-Sunset Operations Lead to $4,000 Fine for AM Station

Belligerence Costs a Florida Broadcaster an Additional $7,000

Pursuant to a recently issued Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), a Florida low power FM broadcaster was penalized an additional $7,000 for refusing to power down its transmitter at the request of agents from the FCC’s Tampa Field Office. In June 2010, FCC field agents, following up on a complaint lodged by the Federal Aviation Administration regarding interference to its Air Traffic Control frequency at 133.75 MHz, employed direction-finding techniques to locate the source of the interference. The source turned out to be a low power FM station. When approached by the agents, a “representative of the station” repeatedly refused to power down the station even though the agents explained that the interference was an “ongoing safety hazard” and a “safety of life hazard.”

During a subsequent telephone conversation between the station owner and an agent, the owner refused to let his representative at the station power down the transmitter until the station engineer was present. The station owner arrived at the transmitter site 30 minutes later and allowed the agents to inspect the station. At the time of the inspection, agents discovered that the station was using a transmitter that was not certified by the FCC, a direct violation of Section 73.1660 of the FCC’s Rules. The base forfeiture for operating with unauthorized equipment is $5,000.

Two months after the site inspection, the Tampa Field Office issued a Letter of Inquiry. In its response, the licensee admitted that the noncompliant transmitter had been in use for approximately four months, up to and including the date of the site inspection. The response also indicated that the transmitter was replaced by a certified transmitter on July 9, 2010.

The FCC decided that the “particularly egregious” nature of the violation, and the station owner’s “deliberate disregard” of an air traffic safety issue, warranted an upward adjustment of $7,000 to the base fine. The NAL therefore assessed a $12,000 fine against the station.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

October 1, 2011 marks the triennial deadline for full power television stations (and a few lucky qualifying LPTV stations) to send their written must-carry or retransmission consent elections to each of the cable and satellite providers serving their market. The elections made by this October 1st will govern a station’s carriage rights for the three-year period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014, and the impact of these elections will be far more significant for individual TV stations than any made before.

To understand why, keep in mind that in the early days of must-carry/retransmission consent elections, the lack of local competition among cable providers allowed them to take a “my way or the highway” attitude toward television broadcasters. As cable subscribership soared, and local cable providers faced little or no competition for subscribers, broadcasters had little choice but to make their programming available for retransmission. Because cable providers were in a position to refuse to pay cash for retransmission rights, the largest broadcasters were limited to negotiating for non-monetary compensation (e.g., obtaining carriage for an affiliated program service, which led to the launch of Fox News, among others). Smaller broadcasters typically did worse, as they had a weaker negotiating position and little need for non-monetary compensation like guaranteed carriage of a non-existent second channel. These were the days before digital multicasting made such additional local channels at least plausible.

Faced with these challenges, many stations just elected must-carry, which guaranteed cable carriage while avoiding the need to engage in prolonged negotiations likely to result in little gain. That all changed with the arrival of satellite television providers, who provided competition to cable, and more importantly, needed local TV signals to take market share from cable providers. Both of these developments were critical to creating a free market for the retransmission of broadcast programming. First, because they lacked cable’s monopoly position, satellite providers were willing to pay cash to obtain the broadcast programming that would allow them to compete for subscribers. Second, as subscribers left cable for satellite, cable providers suddenly had to compete for subscribers, and couldn’t do it without ensuring continued access to local broadcast signals.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In the past few days, details have emerged from the White House regarding the funding sources being proposed to cover the cost of the American Jobs Act. In the government’s search for cash, it should surprise no one that in addition to broadcast spectrum auction language (which seems to be in every new funding bill these days), spectrum fees are also being proposed. While there is some good news for television broadcasters, who are exempt from the fees in the current draft of the bill, you can never tell if that exemption will survive the rough and tumble legislative process. Radio broadcasters aren’t so lucky–no exemption for them.

One trend is clear–the government’s growing reliance on fees from broadcasters and other FCC license holders. When I started practicing in the 1980s, the FCC did not generally charge fees. Congress later instructed the FCC to collect a fee for each application or report filed, and to set the size of the fee at an amount that would cover the cost of processing that particular application/report. While there was some grumbling about having to pay the FCC to process reports that the FCC had required be filed in the first place, most understood that the government was not going to surrender this newly-found revenue source.

However, when Congress later required the FCC to also collect annual regulatory fees from spectrum users in amounts sufficient to cover the FCC’s total operating budget, spectrum users cried foul. They were already paying a filing fee to have the FCC process their applications, and now were expected to pay a separate annual fee to cover all of the FCC’s operating costs (including application processing). This meant that the government was double-dipping–collecting fees under the guise of “covering costs” that in fact exceeded those costs. To his credit, Commissioner McDowell acknowledged this strange situation in 2009, when he urged the FCC to “take another look at why we continue to levy a tax of sorts of allegedly $25 million or so per year on industry, after the Commission has fully funded its operations through regulatory fees. That money goes straight to the Treasury and is not used to fund the agency.” Despite the protests, the FCC continues to be required by Congress to collect those fees, which increase every year.

So broadcasters and other spectrum users can be forgiven if they are skeptical of calls for yet one more government fee on their existence. Even if the exemption for television broadcasters stays in the bill, that is limited comfort for TV licensees, since any spectrum fee adopted will almost inevitably creep over to television as Congress continues its search for revenue sources that can be called “fees” rather than “taxes.”

Sensitive to these complaints, the White House attempted to bolster its case in a summary of the bill, stating that “it is expected that fees would encourage efficient allocation and use of the radio spectrum, as the opportunity cost of spectrum resources would be reflected to commercial license holders that did not receive authorizations through competitive bidding.” This perennial argument, that broadcasters shouldn’t complain about any governmentally-imposed burden because “they got their spectrum for free,” remains one of the urban legends of Washington. Like most urban legends, however, it has no basis in fact.

Very few current broadcasters “got their spectrum for free.” The FCC has been auctioning off broadcast spectrum for over a decade, and broadcast stations that were licensed before that time have typically been sold and resold at “fair market value” many times over the years. As a result, it is a rare broadcaster that currently holds a broadcast license obtained directly from the FCC “for free”. Most broadcasters have paid dearly for that license, both in terms of the station purchase price and the public service obligations that come with the license.

Still, fee proponents argue that because the original license holder didn’t have to pay the government for the spectrum, the “free” argument still applies, no matter how many times the station has changed hands since then. That argument is eviscerated, however, by a simple analogy. When the United States was settled, the government issued land grants to settlers who “staked a claim” to virgin territory by promising to make productive use of that land (the “Sooners” being one of the better-known examples). Other than the promise to use the land, these settlers did not pay the government for their land grants. The land then passed from generation to generation and from seller to buyer many times in the years since the original grant. However, despite the fact that the original owners “got their land for free”, I would wager there are few homeowners among us who would agree that we received “our” land for free, much less accept a governmental fee premised on that assertion.

How spectrum/licenses were originally assigned by the FCC (or its predecessor agency) many years ago bears no more relevance to today’s broadcaster than 19th century land grants relate to the modern homeowner. In both cases, the original owner lived up to its commitment to the government to make productive use of the asset, and was therefore permitted to eventually sell its claim to others. To assert that these buyers are somehow suspect beneficiaries of land or spectrum ignores reality. Today’s broadcasters are merely the spiritual descendants of a different kind of settler–the pioneers of the airwaves.

Published on:

By

The FCC today filed its Brief at the U.S. Supreme Court defending its actions against Fox and ABC programming it found to be indecent. In the case of Fox, the alleged indecency was celebrity expletives uttered during the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards, while ABC was fined for rear nudity shown during an episode of NYPD Blue. As I wrote earlier, the fact that the Court is reviewing such disparate forms of indecency (fleeting expletives during live programming versus nudity during scripted programming) increases the likelihood of a broader ruling by the court regarding indecency policy, as opposed to a decision limited to the very specific facts of these two cases.

When the Supreme Court was contemplating whether to hear the FCC’s appeal of the lower court decisions, some broadcasters urged the Court to look beyond these particular cases and rule on the continued viability of Red Lion. The Red Lion case is a 1969 decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional to limit broadcasters’ First Amendment rights based upon the scarcity of broadcast spectrum. The logic behind Red Lion was that since there isn’t enough spectrum available for everyone to have their own broadcast station, those fortunate enough to get a broadcast license must accept government restrictions on its use. Red Lion is the basis for many of the FCC regulations imposed on broadcasters, but the FCC’s indecency policy is Red Lion‘s most obvious offspring.

While Red Lion is the elephant in the room in any case involving broadcasters’ First Amendment rights, its emergence in the Fox/ABC case was particularly unsurprising. In an earlier stage of the Fox proceeding, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that the FCC’s indecency enforcement was an arbitrary and capricious violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court’s decision was not, however, a show of unanimity. The 5-4 decision included a main opinion from Justice Scalia, but also two concurrences and three dissents. The most interesting aspect of the fractured decision came from Justice Thomas, who joined the majority in finding that the FCC had not violated the Administrative Procedure Act, but who also noted the “deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters” and questioned whether Red Lion was still viable in the Internet age.

It is certainly true that much of the logic supporting Red Lion has been undercut by a changing world. There are now far more broadcast stations than newspapers, but no one argues that the scarcity of newspapers justifies limiting their First Amendment rights. Similarly, the Internet has given those seeking not just a local audience, but a national or even international audience a very low cost alternative for reaching those audiences. While broadcast stations may still be the best way of reaching large local audiences, they are no longer the only way.

These are just a few of the many changes occurring since 1969 that weaken the foundation of Red Lion. If you put two communications lawyers in a room and give them five minutes, they will be able to generate at least a dozen other reasons why Red Lion‘s day has passed. Try this at your next cocktail party. It’s far better than charades and communications lawyers need to get out more anyway.

It is therefore not surprising that broadcasters accepted Justice Thomas’s invitation and urged the Court to reconsider Red Lion in evaluating the constitutionality of indecency regulation. What is interesting, however, is that when the Court agreed to review the lower court decisions, it explicitly limited its review to the constitutionality of the FCC’s indecency policy, and declined to consider the broader questions raised by Justice Thomas with regard to Red Lion.

While some saw that as a defeat for broadcasters, I am inclined to think it was something else entirely. Although the composition of the Court has changed a bit since 2009, it is worth noting that four justices questioned the FCC’s indecency policy then, and a fifth justice explicitly questioned Red Lion, the very foundation of that policy. Given that it only takes the votes of four justices for the Court to agree to hear an appeal, the exclusion of Red Lion from that review is curious, and it is certainly possible that Justice Thomas is alone in his concern about the continued viability of Red Lion.

More likely, however, is that the Court is adhering to its long-held doctrine of keeping decisions as narrow as possible when addressing the constitutionality of a particular law or regulation. If that is the case, then the justices may well have concluded that the FCC’s indecency policy, at least in its current form, cannot survive constitutional review, and that there is no need to consider the broader issue of whether the government has any viable basis for regulating broadcasters and broadcast content. Stated differently, If the Court was inclined to uphold the constitutionality of the FCC’s indecency policy, an assessment of the continued viability of Red Lion would be critical to that decision, since a constitutional policy for which the government lacks a constitutional basis to impose on broadcasters is still unconstitutional.

While it is always a risky endeavor to attempt to “read” the Court, the entire basis of indecency policy is to protect children from content the government finds unsuitable for them. It is therefore telling that on the very day the Court agreed to hear the FCC’s appeal, it also released a decision overturning a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors, finding in a 7-2 decision that the law infringed upon the First Amendment, regardless of its intent to protect children. That decision makes clear that the Court will not merely accept “protecting children” as a valid basis for limiting First Amendment activities.

Of course, the California ban on sales of violent video games to minors affected only minors, whereas the FCC’s restriction on indecency limits the broadcast content that everyone–adults and minors alike–can access from 6am-10pm every day (the hours during which indecent broadcast content is prohibited). That fact, combined with the reality that there is far more “First Amendment” speech (political and otherwise) on radio and television than in most video games, means that the FCC may have a tough job convincing the Court that the FCC’s indecency policy can coexist with the First Amendment.