Background The inventions of television and radio brought with them questions of censorship for the federal and

state governments of the United States. To address these concerns, the Congress passed the Communications Act of 1934, which replaced the Federal Radio Commission with a new governmental agency called the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This agency targets and regulates five major areas of interstate and international communications: radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable[1]. The FCC is also the sole governmental authority on broadcast censorship in the United States. Broadcast censorship is loosely defined as the practice of examining broadcast media and suppressing indecent parts unacceptable to general audiences. These unacceptable parts can range from violence to sex and nudity to language. The most common forms of censorship used by the FCC in broadcasting today are bleeping, censor bars, and pixelization, although the FCC is legally allowed to go much further. It often issues fines totaling up to $375,000.00 per incident for broadcasters utilizing profane words. In addressing the issue of broadcast indecency, the Supreme Court case Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation resulted in the Courts ruling in favor of the FCCs action in censoring George Carlins routine Filthy Words in 1978. This case set the precedent in establishing the power of the FCC to protect children from indecent, potentially offensive material. The case Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations (2009) is a lawsuit over whether the FCCs system for regulating speech is unconstitutionally vague, but was not resolved and will be reopened. The Court is expected to reach a decision on the issue this year. Problem The issue with broadcast censorship is similar to all other forms of censorship: what is acceptable for television studios to air, and what is not? As time moves forward, sayings we once considered obscene or inappropriate become accepted into society--take the word pregnant, for example. The FCC and the Supreme Court have established a three-pronged test outlining the requisites that make material obscene, but their rules are often shaky and best and depend on interpretation. Indecent and profane broadcast restrictions have also been outlined by the FCC, but these definitions and warrants for censorship are often interpreted differently by both sides, leading to many lawsuits every year. The television network community and the FCC often clash, with the networks pushing for fewer restrictions on daytime and evening broadcast material and the FCC maintaining their set boundaries for the networks. Essentially, networks and viewers alike have been at odds with the FCC in regards to what they feel should and should not be censored.

Solution There are valid arguments for both sides of the debate. It is easy to see the opinion of the Federal Communications Commission: they are protecting young children and teenagers from the adult material that would otherwise be shown on television. However, television networks argue that they have more protection from the First Amendment. Another argument for less broadcast censorship is the fear that the FCC is expanding their power. The ruling in the Pacifica case established censorship due to pervasiveness, and more recently Justice Brennan of the Supreme Court stated that almost all media can be censored due to pervasiveness. In other words, the line between what should be protected by the Constitution and what should be censored by the FCC is so blurry that even a Supreme Court Justice may have trouble finding the distinction. Thus, there is no clear solution in terms of what material should or should not be censored by the FCC, or what changes should be made to the ratings. What the Board recommends should be done instead of providing a specific list of material deemed inappropriate for television and radio, however, is to publicize ratings more thoroughly, especially during broadcast television during daytime and primetime. Currently, television is given ratings by the Motion Picture Association of America, the same organization that rates movies. Yet while movie ratings are well-publicized and known to all, ratings for television shows, especially on cable tv, are relatively unknown. Making the tv shows ratings more discernible to the casual viewer would be a significant step in quelling the countless protests that surface after each unexpected obscenity. This could perhaps be done in a rolling comment at the bottom of the screen, shown briefly after every commercial break so that viewers just tuning in would be able to find the ratings without too much effort on their part. In sum, the Board believes that much of the issues and controversy surrounding broadcast censorship would be greatly mitigated by increased publicity of the ratings of daytime and primetime television shows. It therefore recommends the compulsory acknowledgement of ratings by the audience through methods similar to that of the movie industry, in the form of a quick comment at the bottom of the screen.