Broadcast Indecency (1997) treats broadcast indecency as more than a simple regulatory problem in American law. The author’s approach cuts across legal, social and economic concerns, taking the view that media law and regulation cannot be seen within a vacuum that ignores cultural realities. It treats broadcast as a phenomenon challenging the policy approach of government regulation, and is an exploration of the political and social processes involved in the government control of mass media content.

Two prominent television events placed increased attention on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the broadcast indecency statute that it enforces. The airing of an expletive by Bono during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, as well as the "wardrobe malfunction" that occurred during the 2004 Super Bowl half-time show, gave broadcast indecency prominence in the 108th and 109th Congresses, and resulted in the enactment of P.L.109-235 (2006), which increased the penalties for broadcast indecency by tenfold. Federal law makes it a crime to utter "any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication" (18 U.S.C. § 1464). Violators of this statute are subject to fines and imprisonment of up to two years, and the FCC may enforce this provision by forfeiture or revocation of a broadcaster's license. The FCC has found that, for material to be "indecent," it "must describe or depict sexual or excretory organs or activities," and "must be patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium." The federal government's authority to regulate material that is "indecent" but not obscene was upheld by the Supreme Court in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, which found that prohibiting such material during certain times of the day does not violate the First Amendment. In 1992, Congress enacted P.L. 102-356 (47 U.S.C. § 303 note), section 16(a) of which, as interpreted by the courts, requires the FCC to prohibit "indecent" material on broadcast radio and broadcast television from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Under P.L. 109-235, "indecent" broadcasts are now subject to a fine of up to "$325,000 for each violation or each day of continuing violation, except that the amount assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed a total of $3,000,000 for any single act or failure to act." Fines may be levied against broadcast stations, but not against broadcast networks. The FCC appears to have the statutory authority to fine performers as well (up to $32,500 per incident), but has taken the position that "[c]ompliance with federal broadcast decency restrictions is the responsibility of the station that chooses to air the programming, not the performers." The federal restriction on "indecent" material applies only to broadcast media, and this stems from the fact that there are a limited number of broadcast frequencies available and that the Supreme Court, therefore, allows the government to regulate broadcast media more than other media. This report discusses the legal evolution of the FCC's indecency regulations, and provides an overview of how the current regulations have been applied. The final section of the report considers whether prohibiting the broadcast of "indecent" words regardless of context would violate the First Amendment. This question arises because the Supreme Court in Pacifica left open the question whether broadcasting an occasional expletive, as in the Bono case, would justify a sanction.

Discussing such controversial issues as 'shock jock' Howard Stern, this book treats broadcast indecency as more than a simple regulatory problem in American law. The author's approach cuts across legal, social, and economic concerns taking the view that media law and regulation cannot be seen within a vacuum that ignores cultural realities. This cutting-edge book treats broadcast indecency as a social phenomenon challenging the policy approach of government regulation. It is an exploration of the political and social processes involved in the government control of mass media content. The author, using F.C.C. documents and other sources, studies the complex issue of broadcast indecency and its impact on the mass media and the public. He also challenges assumptions and attempts to place content issues within an international context and to project the future of regulation while offering practical advice to broadcast managers on how to deal with today's broadcast indecency issues. Jeremy Harris Lipschultz, Ph.D., is a former radio news director. He is currently an associate professor of communication and Graduate Program Chair in the Department of Communication, University of Nebraska at Omaha. He holds a Ph.D. in journalism from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale and has been active in the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.

By examining the activities of Morality in Media and the American Family Association as related to the FCC, this work provides a clear picture of whether these groups have had any impact on the policy-making process.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in June 2012, left broadcasters in a holding pattern by dodging the longstanding question of whether the Federal Communications Commissions broadcast indecency policy can survive constitutional scrutiny today given the vastly changed media landscape. The high courts narrow ruling in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. exonerated broadcasters for the specific on-air improprieties that brought the case to its attention, but did little to resolve the larger and more salient issue of whether such content regulations have become archaic. As a result, the Commission continues to police the broadcast airwaves, recently sanctioning a Roanoke, Virginia television station $325,000 for alleged broadcast indecency. This dissertation yields an in-depth analysis and synthesis of the legal obstacles the FCC will encounter in attempting to establish any revamped policy governing broadcast indecency. It discusses the insuperable First Amendment considerations that will trouble the Commission in its efforts, including the current exceptions that swallow the rationale for the regulations and the dramatically changed media landscape that render them unsuccessful.

Changes in society, the pluralistic nature of the citizens and thegeographic breadth of America preclude a common definition of whatis indecent, profane, or obscene. What may appear to be 'dirtydiscourse' to some may be considered to be laudable satire toothers. In this fascinating book, renowned media scholars andauthors, Robert Hilliard and Michael Keith, examine the history andnature of indecent program content in American radio. Examines the blue side of the airways with a first-everanalysis of the history and nature of off-color programcontent. Explores the treatment of once-forbidden topics in theelectronic media, investigating the beliefs, attitudes and actionsof those who present such material, those who condemn it, and thosewho defend it. Written from a social and cultural perspective, concentrates onthe means of greatest distribution - radio, with its phenomenalgrowth of "shock jocks" and rap music lyrics. Provides coverage of television and the Internet, showing howand why broadcasting has evolved from the ribald antics of theRoaring 20's to today's streaming cybersex, contrasting thestandards and actions of the FCC v. the First Amendment amidst theover-the-air and in-the-court battles of over-the-top radio. Illustrates political pressures and legal considerations,including Supreme Court decisions, and efforts to protect childrenfrom media smut.

Indecency--arguably among the most provocative and incendiary issues in today's media--is speech at the edge of social tolerance. This timely volume examines broadcast and Internet indecency from legal and social perspectives, utilizing current cases and well-publicized examples. In exploring the issues associated with this highly controversial area, author Jeremy Harris Lipschultz makes headway toward an understanding of how indecency, as communication on the fringes of social norms, functions in defining free expression through specific types of speech. He contrasts conceptualizations of indecency and obscenity, synthesizes case law and social research, and develops theoretical generalizations for future research and study. His work provides a comprehensive examination of broadcast and Internet indecency issues and cases that serve to test generalizations about freedom of expression and one's ability to define free speech.