To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




FCC v. Pacifica Foundation

Law Dictionary

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Font size

Constitutional Law Keyed to Stone

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 438 U.S. 726, 98 S. Ct. 3026, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1073, 1978 U.S. 135.

Brief Fact Summary. A satiric humorist named George Carlin (Carlin) recorded a 12-minute monologue entitled “Filthy Words” before a live audience in a California theatre. Carlin began by referring to his thoughts about the words that could not be said on the public airwaves. Then, Carlin proceeded to list those words and repeat them over and over again.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The concept of indecent is intimately connected with the exposure of children to language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities and organs, at times of the day when there is reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Facts. On October 30, 1973, at 2:00 p.m., a New York radio station, owned by the Respondent, Pacifica Foundation (Respondent) broadcast the “Filthy Words” monologue. A few weeks later, a man who stated that he heard the broadcast while driving with his young son, wrote a letter complaining to the Petitioner, the Federal Communications Commission (Petitioner). In response to the complaint, the Respondent explained that the monologue had been played during a program about contemporary society’s attitude toward language and that, immediately before its broadcast, listeners had been advised of the monologue’s language. The Petitioner, after characterizing the language as patently offensive, though not necessarily obscene, issued a declaratory order granting the complaint, but not imposing any formal sanctions. The Petitioner concluded that the language as broadcast was indecent and prohibited by 18 U.S.C. Section:1464, prohibiting the broadcast of obscene, indecent or profane language. The Unit
ed States Court of Appeals reversed.

Issue. Whether the Petitioner has any power to regulate a radio broadcast that is indecent but not obscene?
See More Course Videos

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following