FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 18–19, 1978 Decided July 3, 1978
Full case name	Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, et al.
Citations	438 U.S. 726 (more) 98 S. Ct. 3026; 57 L. Ed. 2d 1073; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 135; 43 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 493; 3 Media L. Rep. 2553
Prior history	Complaint granted, 56 F.C.C.2d 94 (1975); reversed, 181 U.S.App.D.C. 132, 556 F.2d 9 (1977); certiorari granted, 434 U.S. 1008
Holding
Because of the pervasive nature of broadcasting, it has less First Amendment protection than other forms of communication. The F.C.C. was justified in concluding that Carlin's "Filthy Words" broadcast, though not obscene, was indecent, and subject to restriction.
Court membership
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr. William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
Majority	Stevens, joined by Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Powell
Concurrence	Powell, joined by Blackmun
Dissent	Brennan, joined by Marshall
Dissent	Stewart, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I; 18 U.S.C. § 1464

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that defined the power of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over indecent material as applied to broadcasting.^[1]

Facts[edit]

On 30 October 1973, FM radio station WBAI in New York City aired a broadcast that included a segment which featured the George Carlin routine "Filthy Words" as part of a program about societal attitudes towards language. ^[2] A few weeks later, John Douglas who was an active member of Morality in Media claimed that he heard the broadcast while he was driving with his 15-year-old son in a complaint filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He stated the material was inappropriate for the time of day (approximately 2:00 p.m.).^[3] In response, Pacifica received a letter of reprimand from the FCC censuring them for allegedly violating broadcast regulations which prohibited airing indecent material. ^[4]

In reference to this case, a poster in a WBAI broadcast booth warns radio broadcasters against using the seven dirty words.

Holding[edit]

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC's actions in 1978, by a vote of 5 to 4, ruling that the routine was "indecent but not obscene". The Court recognized the government had strong interests in:

• Shielding children from potentially offensive material, and


• Ensuring that unwanted speech does not intrude on the privacy of one's home.

The Pacifica Court upheld the FCC’s power to regulate broadcast media, citing two pervading governmental interests. First, the “uniquely pervasive” nature of these broadcasts allows them to seep into “the privacy of the home” without the consent of the viewer. Second, broadcasts are “uniquely accessible to children” whose “vocabulary [could be enlarged] in an instant” by hearing indecent or profane language. The Court held that these two concerns were sufficient to “justify special treatment of indecent broadcasting,” thereby allowing the FCC to fine broadcasters for airing inappropriate content.

The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience, and gave the FCC broad leeway to determine what constituted indecency in different contexts.

Impact[edit]

At first, despite the resounding win in Pacifica, the FCC used its new regulatory powers sparingly.^[5] In the 1980s, however, the FCC ramped up sanctions for indecent broadcasts as conservative groups and the Reagan Administration expressed concern over the rise of “shock jock” radio personalities.^[6] And by the early 2000s, the FCC began to levy more sanctions with higher dollar amounts—with fines of up to $500,000 for some offenses.^[7]

In 1997, Pacifica Radio "Living Room" host Larry Bensky prefaced an interview with Carlin by saying: "George Carlin, you're a very unusual guest for Pacifica Radio. You're probably the only person in the United States that we don't have to give The Carlin Warning to about which words you can't say on this program, because it's named after you."^[8][9]

In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act, which criminalized the knowing transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to underage people. In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997), the American Civil Liberties Union claimed that the act violated First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. To attain standing, the ACLU published the Supreme Court's opinion on F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation on its website, which included a transcript of Carlin's monologue.

At least one scholar has argued that modern self-censoring technology—e.g., the V-chip—has significantly undermined the Supreme Court's rationale in Pacifica.^[10]

See also[edit]

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 438


• 
  Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations (2009)


• 
  Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations (2012)

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

• 
  Tremblay, R. Wilfred (2003). "FCC v. Pacifica Foundation". In Parker, Richard A. Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. pp. 218&ndash, 233. ISBN 978-0-8173-1301-2.
  

External links[edit]

• 
  Works related to FCC v. Pacifica Foundation at Wikisource


• Text of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) is available from:  CourtListener  Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio) 
  


• 
  First Amendment Library entry on FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, First Amendment Center, archived from the original on 1 Jul 2008, retrieved 15 February 2015