Appeals Court Strikes Down Indecency Rule

A United States appeals court tossed out the indecency policy of the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday, calling it a violation of the First Amendment.

An appeals panel said the F.C.C. policy was “unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here.”

The ruling was immediately characterized as a victory for big broadcasters like ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC, which have been fighting the indecency policy for years.

Tuesday’s ruling vacates a 2004 decision by the Bush administration F.C.C. to step up enforcement of the indecency policy on the broadcast airwaves. Earlier that year, the singer Janet Jackson’s breast was bared during the Super Bowl halftime show on CBS, reigniting a decades-old debate about broadcast standards.

But Tuesday’s ruling deals more specifically with the F.C.C. policy toward so-called fleeting expletives. After several curse words were uttered during awards shows in 2002 and 2003, the F.C.C. concluded that a single use of an expletive “could be actionably indecent,” triggering fines against broadcasters.

Also in 2004, Congress said that the F.C.C. could fine stations up to $325,000 for each instance of indecent speech, substantially raising the penalties for a profanity that was not bleeped.

On Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York found that the policy toward fleeting expletives effectively chills speech in part “because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the F.C.C. will find offensive.”

In a statement, Fox Broadcasting said it was extremely pleased by Tuesday’s decision. “We have always felt that the government’s position on fleeting expletives was unconstitutional,” said the company, a unit of the News Corporation. “While we will continue to strive to eliminate expletives from live broadcasts, the inherent challenges broadcasters face with live television, coupled with the human element required for monitoring, must allow for the unfortunate isolated instances where inappropriate language slips through.”

Other major broadcasters echoed Fox’s comments in private, but declined to comment on the record.

“The score for today’s game is First Amendment 1, censorship 0,” Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president for the nonprofit Media Access Project, said in a statement.

The group was among those that opposed the rules and claimed that they “interfere with the creative process.”

“Today’s decision vindicates that argument,” Mr. Schwartzman’s statement said. “The next stop is the Supreme Court, and we’re confident that the justices will affirm this decision.”


Source: mediadecoder

Marvel Vs. Edward Norton, Round 2

As a response to Marvel Studios President of Production Kevin Feige's statement that Edward Norton was not asked to reprise the role of Bruce Banner/The Hulk in the upcoming Avengers movie (Feige said that the decision was made as a result of "the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members"), Norton's agent, Brian Swardstrom, made an attempt to clarify the behind-the-scenes goings-on from the actor's point-of-view.

"This offensive statement from Kevin Feige at Marvel is a purposefully misleading, inappropriate attempt to paint our client in a negative light," he told Hitfix, the site that broke the story. "Here are the facts: two months ago, Kevin called me and said he wanted Edward to reprise the role of Bruce Banner in 'The Avengers.' He told me it would be his fantasy to bring Edward on stage with the rest of the cast at [Comic-Con] and make it the event of the convention. When I said that Edward was definitely open to this idea, Kevin was very excited and we agreed that Edward should meet with [director] Joss Whedon to discuss the project. Edward and Joss had a very good meeting (confirmed by Feige to me) at which Edward said he was enthusiastic at the prospect of being a part of the ensemble cast.

"Marvel subsequently made him a financial offer to be in the film and both sides started negotiating in good faith," he continued. "This past Wednesday, after several weeks of civil, uncontentious discussions, but before we had come to terms on a deal, a representative from Marvel called to say they had decided to go in another direction with the part. This seemed to us to be a financial decision but, whatever the case, it is completely their prerogative, and we accepted their decision with no hard feelings... We know a lot of fans have voiced their public disappointment with this result, but this is no excuse for Feige's mean spirited, accusatory comments. Counter to what Kevin implies here, Edward was looking forward to the opportunity to work with Joss and the other actors in the Avengers cast, many of whom are personal friends of his. Feige's statement is unprofessional, disingenuous and clearly defamatory. Mr. Norton talent, tireless work ethic and professional integrity deserve more respect, and so do Marvel's fans."

SOURCE: hitfix