A Disarmed FCC

IBD Editorials ^ | July 21, 2008

[Kaslin]

Judiciary: A federal court has overturned the Federal Communications Commission's fine against CBS for broadcasting nudity during its 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. Airwaves can't be policed without weapons.

---

Once again, the importance of who serves in the federal judiciary was made as clear as a high-definition TV image on Monday, as a three-judge panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals knocked down a $550,000 FCC fine against CBS.

Two of the three judges were Bill Clinton appointees, but it was the Reagan-appointed Anthony Scirica who wrote the decision — demonstrating again that Republican presidents must take great care in vetting nominees, lest they place another John Paul Stevens or David Souter in power.

Scirica concedes in his opinion that the baring of Janet Jackson's breast by Justin Timberlake as he sang "gonna have you naked by the end of this song" in the MTV-produced segment was "a deceitful and manipulative act." Witnessed by 90 million viewers, many of them children, the program brought a torrent of complaints.

[mysterio]

Judiciary: A federal court has overturned the Federal Communications Commission's fine against CBS for broadcasting nudity during its 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

Good. Disarm the FCC even more. No child was ever harmed by the sight of a human breast. Many children have been harmed by government, however.

[ken21]

it was a stupid trick,

and the fcc was stupid to intervene.

[Cacique]

An armed FCC is a threat to the first amendment and our speech. Wait until the fairness doctrine comes back and they give them additional control over the internet. We need to take back congress and the senate pronto.

[Sender]

Immediately before the pre-planned "costume malfunction".

"Oh gosh, I think I'll just rip off your velcro bra cup."

(Disclaimer: no animals were harmed in this stunt)

[Pontiac]

An armed FCC is a threat to the first amendment and our speech…We need to take back congress and the senate pronto.

Congress is a greater threat to our freedom of speech and all of our other freedoms.

[PackerBoy]

I read the long appeals court's opinion. They are correct. The FCC did not have ANY evidence of CBS's complicity, which was required, to impose a fine. This stunt was concocted by Jackson and Timberlake and the network had no idea it was planned. Had CBS known, I have no doubt its execs would have cancelled the halftime performance before letting this stunt go forward.

The FCC was reacting to the inprecedented number of complaints it received.

This is actually pretty scarey. A federal agency responding emotionally to something it did not like, with no evidence to support its attack on an innocent entity. This reminds me of those huge jury verdicts against pediatricians whenever babies aren't born perfect (and someone must be held accountable!).

You can bet CBS spent more money defending this bogus case than the fine that was levied. That upsets me -- but only a little. That network is pretty loose with its money anyway (e.g. Katie Couric).

[Libertarianize the GOP]

This ruling only affects the one event, now that the new FCC policy is understood these same judges will uphold a large fine for a duplicate event.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

It is not the judges that you should applaud, read their decision and then ask Congress to change the FCC mandate. The Judges said the FCC was well within their authority to change the rules, they only said that fines could not be imposed for rules that changed after the event.

[PGalt]

That was where I parted company with the NFL. Having not watched a Lions game in about 20 years (except for falling asleep to some after Thanksgiving dinner), it was easy. Even a caveman can do it.

[boogerbear]

The NFL didn’t have anything to do it with. They were pi$$#d. Viacom had to divest itself of CBS before the next round of renewals or CBS would have lost their contract.

[Impy]

but it was the Reagan-appointed Anthony Scirica who wrote the decision — demonstrating again that Republican presidents must take great care in vetting nominees

Sounds like this one was vetted well. I guess the author prefers statist judges.

[Rick.Donaldson]

Personally, I think the fine should have been levied (IF they were going to fine anyone) on the person that did the deed and NOT the network.

[ken21]

but neither were under contract,

therefore the law doesn’t apply.

source: bill handel, am 640 los angeles. he’s a lawyer.