When Does F*** Not Mean F***?: FCC v. Fox Television Stations and a Call for Protecting Emotive Speech

Citation data:

64 Federal Communications Law Journal 1 (2011), Vol: 64, Issue: 1

Publication Year:
2011
Usage 619
Downloads 555
Abstract Views 64
Mentions 1
References 1
Repository URL:
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol64/iss1/2; https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1604&context=fclj
Author(s):
Hopkins, W. Wat
Publisher(s):
Digital Repository @ Maurer Law
Tags:
Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations; Fleeting Expletive; Cohen v. California; Emotive Speech; Indecency; Administrative Law; Communications Law; Constitutional Law; First Amendment; Legislation; Litigation
article description
The Supreme Court of the United States does not always deal cogently with nontraditional language. The most recent example is FCC v. Fox Television Stations, in which the Justices became sidetracked into attempting to define the f-word and then to determine whether, when used as a fleeting expletive rather than repeatedly, the word is indecent for broadcast purposes. The Court would do well to avoid definitions and heed Justice John Marshall Harlan's advice in Cohen v. California to provide protection for the emotive, as well as the cognitive, element of speech