My response from FCC regarding Sinclair Broadcast Group (Nightline)

[jdj]

I just got this today. Lame, and also confirms that unless it has a nipple, the FCC doesn't care.
------------------------
Thank you for contacting the FCC.
 
Although the FCC licenses stations, we have very little control over the content of what is broadcast.  That is because of the First Amendment's freedom of expression and the no-censorship provision of the Communications Act.  That means that the FCC cannot tell a station what to air or what not to air.  (I should note that obscenity is an exception to this, because the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment.)  Because the FCC cannot tell a station what to air, the responsibility lies wholly with each particular licensee.  So if the Sinclair Group chooses to run some other program instead of "Nightline," that is its right.  If you  wish to complain, it should be to the station - not the FCC.  
 
The following information should provide a clarification of the FCC's role in regulating the broadcasting industry.
The Communications Act of 1934 that established the Federal Communications Commission PROHIBITS the Commission from censoring broadcast matter and taking action that would interfere with free speech in broadcasting, a freedom also guaranteed in our Constitution's First Amendment.
Individual radio and television station licensees are responsible for selecting all broadcast matter and for determining how their stations can best serve their communities. Licensees are responsible for choosing the entertainment programming and the programs concerning the local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports events and other subjects to be aired by the station. They also decide how their programs, including call-in shows, will be conducted and whether or not to edit or reschedule material for broadcasting. To this end the Commission does not substitute its judgment for that of the broadcaster in this process, and it does not act as an advisor to stations on artistic standards, grammar or quality of content.
 However, Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission the responsibility for administratively enforcing 18 U.S.C. § 1464. In doing so, the Commission may issue a warning, impose a monetary forfeiture or revoke a station license for the broadcast of obscene, profane or indecent material. It is a violation of federal law to broadcast obscene, profane or indecent programming. The prohibition is set forth at Title 18 United States Code, Section 1464 (18 U.S.C. § 1464).
Obscene speech is not protected by the First amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. Indecent broadcast is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. Profane Words and/or phrases will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Indecent and/or profane broadcasts are restricted during the hours of 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM.
To obtain a more detailed definition of Obscene, Indecent and/or Profane Broadcasts and to obtain information on the Enforcement Procedures and how to File a Complaint, please access our web site at: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/opi.html
The Commission's enforcement actions in administratively enforcing the prohibition to broadcast obscene and/or indecent programming are based on documented complaints of indecent, obscene and/or profane broadcasting received from the public. The Commission will act on all documented complaints that may violate FCC rules and regulations governing obscene, indecent and/or profane programming.
The Commission also issued a Policy Statement to provide guidance to the broadcast industry regarding our case law interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and our enforcement policies with respect to broadcast indecency. You may access this statement on our web site at:
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01090.html 


blah, blah, blah.

signed Sharon Jenkins

so obscene speech is not protected the the First Amendment, but indecent broadcast is protected...WTF??

Not that that is what is important to anyone (but sex-phobic fundie cannon fodder censorers)

[I thought so.]

1. What was the indecent broadcast?

Please explain.

[jdj]

2. There wasn't one, it was a censorship issue.

I complained about Sinclair Group censoring the episode of Nightline where Koppel read the names of the fallen soldiers; this company reaches 24% of the market and censored this episode on it's ABC affiliates, this caused quite a stir a few weeks ago.

In my letter I said nothing could be more indecent than this action, and they just today sent me this obscenity obsessed essay on obscene vs. indecent.

[Eric J in MN]

4. Legally, the FCC is right about this.

Legally, the FCC is right about this.

If the Sinclair Group wants to censor a Nightline broadcast, there is no law against that for the FCC to enforce.

[I thought so.]

5. From your post..

it appears that programing is at the descretion of the licensee.(Sinclair) Where is their obligation to broadcast this or any program?

As for the obscenity,Congress passed laws that the FCC must enforce as explained in your first post.

[PretzelWarrior]

6. therefor they should not selectively enforce. they are picking

and choosing just like they go after a left leaning NY prima donna for selling imclone shares but all the GOP stalwarts are getting a circle -jerk show trial and will get off with little but monetary setbacks.

FCC....I agree they can't force an affiliate to run a broadcast. But I did hear shareholders were complaining because it is essentially a bad business decision to run that kind of preemption for a friggin' re-run instead of a highly topical program related to honoring the fallen.

Obscenity isn't just of a sexual nature. There are also limits to the violence that should be shown. Apparently, GOP has no desire to see the American appetite for violence blunted in any way.

And the right wing wackos are able to say the most horrendous and obscene things on the radio without any ramifications.

[Eric J in MN]

8. "patently offensive sexual or excretory references"

"patently offensive sexual or excretory references"

is the definition of "indecency."

Nothing about violence.

A movie may get an R-rating for violence, but that involves the Motion Picture Association of America, not the FCC.

[PretzelWarrior]

9. then no wonder our country is in the sh!tcan already

all good films are generally from France, England, or other where sexual repression is not a national pastime. What a f*cking joke.

[jdj]

10. it zeems it is not just the fzz that meesed my point.

things are tough all over.

[jdj]

7. Did you read the original post?

I said "unless it has a nipple, the FCC doesn't care"

My point was, why did the letter not stop at the first paragraph, where it instructed me to complain to the station ( which I and thousands of other people who are offended by private censorship of the public-owned airwaves did).

Then it launched into a litany from hell about obscenity and indeceny as if the whole nation should be more concerned about the censorship of sex rather than 800+ dead American soldiers. I thought this to be a shameful and embarassing but very revealing indictment of our right-wing dominated culture, and thought I would share it. It perfectly demonstrates how out of step with the public and the western world in general this administration is.

That they would even include this garbage in response to me, much less go on at such length about it ( probably typing with one hand and wanking off with the other) is in itself indecent.

I knew I was barking up the wrong tree when I sent the letter, but by God these people need to be barked at. And they need to know that some of us are sickened at what Sinclair Group did, just thinking about it turns my stomach, especially since one of the black-outs was in my hometown, which is very liberal.

[PretzelWarrior]

3. any Bush "press conference". but that's anothr point

here's the deal. the FCC received overwhelmingly negative letters about their plans to further deregulate the consolidation of the media ownership.

now the FCC is in attack mode over things like a nipple and Howard Stern, but they won't go after blatant violence on TV or the repulsive statements of people like Limbaugh and Michael Savage.

It is sad you are so blinded to the truth. The indecency is the double standard in this vicious society we call home. A little sex on the telly and the kids might have even MORE sex than they already are. BUt for heavens sake make sure they are innured to violence because they will get plenty when they are drafted into Bushco's 100 years conquest.

You make me sick. But I'll defend your right to say it.