Supreme Court Looks At "Fleeting" Expletives

Photo Courtesy of Associated Press Images (Photographer Rick Bowmer (c) 2001)

The First Amendment Center reports that thirty years after FCC v. Pacifica, the Supreme Court is tackling the question of “fleeting” expletives in broadcast and cable media. “Fleeting,” or accidental expletives have been dealt with unclearly since Pacifica, and newer FCC regulation has brought the issue back into the limelight. The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the FCC could not issue indecency fines against Fox following obscenities aired during the 2004 Billboard Awards because their use was “fleeting.” Nevertheless, the FCC appealed to the Supreme Court, and is now having its case heard.

The current case, FCC v. Fox Television Stations, arises in a much different era. Many argue that cable and satellite are virtually indifferent from over-the-air broadcast T.V. Some also question the FCC’s increasingly stricter policies as direct results of the current Bush administration. Whatever the case, the Supreme Court will soon decide on growing questions of decency in certain media.

Post by Gabriel Kassel

Fines blocked for reporter who would not reveal sources

By Naomi P.

AP photo of Dr. Steven J. Hatfill


Former USA Today reporter Toni Locy won a reprieve this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia from having to pay a huge contempt of court fine while her case is on appeal.

Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, about whom she wrote after John Ashcroft mentioned him as “a person of interest” in the anthrax attacks of 2001, filed a civil suit in which he demanded the names of Locy’s anonymous sources who confirmed or provided details about him.

Rather than sentence her to jail time for refusing to name her sources, as is usual in such cases, the lower court ruled that beginning Tuesday, she was to pay a fine of up to $5000 a day.

In an even more unusual move, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton also barred USA Today or anyone else, for that matter, from paying or otherwise assisting with the fine.

But while she is breathing a tentative sigh of relief, the rest of the press community holds its breath. If she loses the appeal, the case will set a precedent that could allow the court to force reporters into punitive bankruptcy and could foreseeably destroy the field and purpose of journalism, particularly investigative journalism. Journalists and even politicians are calling for a federal shield law.