Action for Children's Television v. Federal Communications Commission
58 F.3d 654, 313 U.S. App. D.C. 94 (1995)
Rule of Law:
The government may restrict the broadcast of indecent material to late-night hours to serve the compelling interest of protecting minors, provided the restrictions are narrowly tailored and do not arbitrarily discriminate between different categories of broadcasters.
Facts:
- The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enforces prohibitions against 'indecent' (but not obscene) language on broadcast media under the Radio Act of 1927.
- Congress enacted the Public Telecommunications Act of 1992, intervening in ongoing regulatory disputes regarding the timing of indecent broadcasts.
- Section 16(a) of the 1992 Act mandated that the FCC prohibit indecent programming between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight for most commercial radio and television stations.
- The Act included a specific exception allowing public radio and television stations that go off-air at or before midnight to broadcast indecent material starting earlier, at 10:00 p.m.
- Pursuant to this congressional mandate, the FCC promulgated regulations implementing these specific time restrictions.
- Petitioners, representing broadcasters and advocacy groups, challenged the constitutionality of Section 16(a) and the FCC's implementing regulations.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the constitutionality of the FCC's regulations enforcing the Public Telecommunications Act of 1992.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal statute and FCC regulation that prohibits the broadcast of indecent material between 6:00 a.m. and midnight for commercial stations, while allowing certain public stations to broadcast such material starting at 10:00 p.m., violate the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Buckley
Yes, in part, but the specific regulations are flawed because the government has a compelling interest in protecting children but applied the time restrictions unequally. The court held that the government has a compelling interest in protecting children under 18 from exposure to indecent broadcasts and supporting parental supervision. A 'safe harbor' restricting indecent speech to late-night hours is a constitutionally permissible method (channeling) to balance these interests against First Amendment rights. The court found that the 6:00 a.m. to midnight ban was supported by data regarding youth audience numbers. However, the court ruled that the distinction allowing some public stations to broadcast indecency at 10:00 p.m. while requiring others to wait until midnight was unconstitutional. Congress failed to provide a rational basis for this disparate treatment. To cure this defect, the court instructed the FCC to allow all stations to broadcast indecent material between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Dissenting - Chief Judge Edwards
No, because the government failed to prove that indecent broadcasts cause harm or that this ban was the least restrictive means of regulation. The dissent argued that the majority applied a reduced level of First Amendment scrutiny to broadcasters that is outdated compared to cable television standards. Judge Edwards emphasized that there was no evidence in the record proving indecent broadcasts actually harm children. Furthermore, he argued that the goals of 'facilitating parental supervision' and 'protecting children' conflicted in this context, as the state was usurping parental choice rather than aiding it. He contended that less restrictive means, such as blocking technology, were ignored.
Dissenting - Judge Wald
No, because the broad ban from 6:00 a.m. to midnight unnecessarily infringes on adult speech rights without sufficient justification. The dissent argued that a ban covering such extensive hours chills protected speech and that the government failed to show why the previously effective 10:00 p.m. safe harbor was insufficient. Judge Wald insisted that the government must demonstrate that the specific hours chosen are tailored to actual parental supervision needs and that the current evidence did not support moving the safe harbor start time from 10:00 p.m. back to midnight.
Analysis:
This case is a pivotal decision in First Amendment law regarding broadcast media. It solidified the constitutionality of the 'safe harbor' concept—permitting the government to channel indecent speech to late-night hours (10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) rather than banning it entirely. The decision reaffirms the Pacifica doctrine that broadcasting receives less First Amendment protection than other media due to its pervasiveness and accessibility to children. However, it also establishes that while Congress has significant leeway, it cannot draw arbitrary distinctions between types of broadcasters (public vs. commercial) when restricting speech. This ruling effectively set the industry standard for broadcast decency that remains relevant today.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Action for Children's Television v. Federal Communications Commission (1995)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"