Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
AllegraSimon (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
==Holdings== | ==Holdings== | ||
===The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit=== | ===The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Holding=== | ||
====Decision==== | |||
A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed in a 2-1 decision, with each of the three judges writing separately. | |||
=====Majority Opinion===== | |||
One judge argued that the FCC's order was invalid on the grounds that | |||
*it constituted censorship, prohibited by the Communications Act of 1934 (link) | |||
* | |||
=====Dissenting Opinion===== | |||
===Supreme Court=== | ===Supreme Court=== | ||
====Decision==== | |||
=====Majority Opinion===== | |||
=====Dissenting Opinion===== | |||
==External Links== | ==External Links== | ||
[http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml Original Sketch] | [http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml Original Sketch] | ||
Revision as of 15:52, 8 July 2011
Facts
In 1973, comedian George Carlin recorded a twelve minute monologue, "Filthy Words" in front of a live audience in California. On the afternoon of October 30th, 1973, WBAI, a New York radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation, broadcast the routine. Soon after, a father wrote to the FCC complaining that his son had heard "Filthy Words", stating that the FCC was not properly regulating the airwaves. Pacifica Foundation received censure from the FCC, who claimed that Pacifica had violated FCC regulations that prohibited broadcasting indecent material. The FCC ruled that the broadcast was not obscene, but it was indecent and aired at an inappropriate time, and that the FCC did have the right to impose sanctions on broadcast times.
The Seven Words are
- Shit
- Piss
- Fuck
- Cunt
- Cocksucker
- Motherfucker
- Tits
Holdings
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Holding
Decision
A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed in a 2-1 decision, with each of the three judges writing separately.
Majority Opinion
One judge argued that the FCC's order was invalid on the grounds that
- it constituted censorship, prohibited by the Communications Act of 1934 (link)
