Broadcast television and radio have historically been subject to greater censorship controls than other forms of expression. Federal law prohibits the broadcast of obscene, indecent or profane language. Obscenity is an unprotected category of speech in any medium, but indecent and profane language is protected by the First Amendment outside of the broadcast context. There are several rationales for this differential treatment. The most-cited rationale to justify restrictions on indecency and attempts to restrict violence is the interest in protecting children from potentially harmful material.

Additionally, the recent trend towards greater government secrecy has influenced a more subtle type of censorship in news reporting and access to current events. Below is a list of incidents of censorship targeting television and radio, as well as articles and other resource information exploring the specific current issues such as violence in the media, indecency, and censorship of wartime reportage.

» CBS Refuses Political Advertisement (posted January 23, 2004) CBS rejected a Super Bowl advertisement from MoveOn.org, saying the ad violated its advocacy rules.

» Activists Win Billboard Battle, Not Free Expression War by Katherine Stapp
The Internet remains a key, mostly unregulated, outlet for political activism, but corporate control of more traditional media like radio and television has stymied some activists seeking to reach a broader, mainstream audience.

» FCC to Vote June 2: Proposed Rules Likely to Restrict News Coverage and Entertainment Options On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission is expected to authorize sweeping changes in the way American news media operate, by relaxing its anti-monopoly ownership rules.

» Supreme Court Protects Speech on Cable TV Issue #78: Summer 2000
The Supreme Court struck down a federal law which made cable TV systems completely scramble their signals or restrict sexually-oriented programs to late-night hours to protect minors from exposure through "signal bleed" (U.S. v. Playboy).

» Free Expression After September 11th - An Online Index of Censorship Incidents INDEX OF INCIDENTS

» Sarah Jones v. Federal Communications Commission After a radio station played Sarah Jones' rap song "Your Revolution," the Federal Communications Commission (FFC) issued to that radio station a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) for broadcast of an allegedly obscene song. The radio station, with Jones, made an administrative appeal. Sarah Jones also sued the FCC in federal district court on the claim that the issuance of the NAL violated her First Amendment rights.
The Court dismissed her claim, finding (1) the FCC had not made a final ruling on the propriety of the NAL issuance, and judicial review will be available only after such a ruling; and (2) the Court lacked jurisdiction.
The FCC has since rescinded its issue of the NAL against the radio station, finding that the song is not indecent and ending censorship of Jones' song.
Related:
» Sarah Jones v. Federal Communications Commission (summary and lyrics)

» Congress Succumbing to Censorship Hysteria Issue #59: September 1995
Republicans in both houses of Congress who eulogize less government and more respect for tradition, displayed devout contempt for one of our most important traditions -- the right to free speech---by promoting and voting for a telecommunications bill that tramples First Amendment rights in two ways: by censoring the Internet and establishing government-required ratings for violence and sex in every television and cable program. Democrats scrambled to show they were part of the repressive tide.

» Wildmon v. Berwick Universal Pictures, (N.D.Miss. 1992) 803 F. Supp. 1167 » Opinion - Wildmon v. Berwick Universal Pictures (not necessarily TV specific but about editorial control, contracts, interviews)
In 1990 a British film producer interviewed Donald Wildmon, a religious leader and arts funding opponent, about his involvement in the censorship of artwork in the United States. Wildmon objected to the use of his interview in the final documentary product, as it was interspersed with the very images he found morally offensive.
In this suit Wildmon attempted stop the distribution of the documentary in the U.S. on the basis of his contract with the film company. The Court suggested Wildmon knew or should have known that the film could contain graphic images. The Court tried not to consider public policy and First Amendment arguments, restricting the case primarily to contract law.

» The First Amendment in the Shadow of Terrorism Issue #83: Fall 2001
"Professors, students, reporters and media figures have also come under attack for responding to the crisis in the American way: by questioning, analyzing, debating, and expressing opinions. TV talk-show host Bill Maher and writer-critic Susan Sontag were excoriated for their views on what kind of conduct is "cowardly."

» Whose airwaves? Whose "decency standard"? Posted May 20, 2004
S. 2056, a bill to increase the penalties for transmission of "obscene, indecent, and profane material" by TV and radio broadcasters to $275,000 for each violation (from 27,000) is currently on the Senate Legislative Calendar.
A similar bill (increasing penalties to $500,000) passed in the House of Representatives on March 11, 2004. That bill also allows the FCC to revoke broadcast licenses in cases where there are more three violations on record.
The current effort to regulate the content of the airwaves presents a serious threat to free speech.

» The Uses of "Indecency" by Svetlana Mintcheva
Issue #94: Summer 2004

» NCAC and Other First Amendment Groups Condemn Congressional Efforts to Expand FCC Decency Rules March 2, 2004
Letter to Fred Upton, Chairman and Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet

» Indecency, Again by Joan E. Bertin
Joan Bertin discusses the recent issues and controversies surrounding broadcast indecency.
Issue #93: Spring 2004

» "Decency" on the Airwaves August 7, 2003
Remember George Carlin's "seven dirty words" monologue? Many people thought it was pretty funny, but what happened afterwards was not. The Federal Communications Commission charged that it violated broadcast standards for "indecency," a decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1978. Since then, the question of defining what is "indecent" has plagued courts, consumers, broadcasters and performers.
In the recent past, the FCC has issued citations for Sarah Jones' political song "Your Revolution" and the radio-edited version of Eminem's Grammy-winning song, "The Real Slim Shady." The Supreme Court has never reversed its 1978 decision, but more recent cases cast doubt on the continuing viability of the decency standard. Now, a coalition of First Amendment organizations, including NCAC, is petitioning the FCC to bring the indecency standard into line with recent First Amendment decisions.
To see a copy of the Comments filed with the FCC on August 6, click here. (PDF file)

» The Strange Case of Sarah Jones by Marjorie Heins
Issue #89: Spring 2003

» Lawyers and scholars write Dr. Louis Z. Cooper President American Academy of Pediatrics to ask him to reconsider the AAP's November 2001 Policy Statement on Media Violence.

» Scholars Ask American Academy of Pediatrics to reconsider misstatements about media violence New York, December 5, 2001
A group of media scholars asked the American Academy of Pediatrics today to reconsider its November 2001 Policy Statement on Media Violence because of its "many misstatements about social-science research on media effects." The scholars cited both the Policy Statement's factual inaccuracies and its "overall distortions and failure to acknowledge many serious questions about the interpretation of media violence studies."

» Not In Front Of The Children A Reply to the Critics
by Marjorie Heins
October, 2001
Marjorie Heins responds to criticisms that her book "Not in Front of the Children" is insufficiently sensitive to the concerns of parents about sexual explicitness and graphic violence in popular culture.

» Testimony of Joan E. Bertin, Executive Director, NCAC before the Task Force on Youth Violence and the Entertainment Industry October 6, 1999
Albany, N.Y.

» Washington's Post-Littleton Looney Tunes by Frank Rich Issue #74: Summer 1999
The New York Times June 19, 1999

» Media Scholar Warns Senate: Listen to Our Children. Don't Fear Them. Issue #74: Summer 1999
MIT professor Henry Jenkins, Director of the Comparative Media Studies Program and Professor of Literature, testifying at a hearing on youth violence, warned the Senate Commerce Committee not to succumb to a climate of moral panic and embrace misguided and ineffectual proposals to censor youthful expression or the media.

» Violence in the Media, by Joan E. Bertin Issue #74: Summer 1999

» Censorship's Tools Du Jour: V-Chips, TV Ratings, PICS, and Internet Filters A Background Paper, March 1998

» Sex and Censorship: Dangers to Minors and Others? Issue #71: Fall 1998

» Government Rating or Government Control? Issue #66: Summer 1997 Dissatisfied with the "voluntary" ratings system developed by the television and entertainment industries, Congress initiated proposals to impose a government-sanctioned rating system on television programming.

» Thomas Oliphant's article entitled "A Rush to Rate Television Shows" reprinted from the May 20th issue of The Boston Globe. The article details the controversy over the proposed new TV ratings system, whether government initiated ratings comprise censorship and if the Federal Communications Commission can limit free speech.

» U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group Brief Amici Curiae Of Sexuality Scholars, Researchers, Educators, And Therapists In Support Of Appellee

» Wrestling Fans are Locked in a Bout with the Parents TV Council Issue #81: Spring 2001 (insert anchor) Wrestling fans are locked in a bout with the Parents TV Council which is urging the FCC to ban wrestling from the air waves and sponsors to stop ads. "I still have never understood why things as simple as turning it off are not part of the answer...," mused FCC Chairman Michael Powell.

» Statement of the National Coalition Against Censorship Regarding the Media Marketing Accountability Act of 2001 New York, April 26, 2001

» NCAC to Sponsor Panel on Ratings and Filters Issue #68: Winter 1997

» The Politics of Ratings, Labels and Filters: A Little Bedlam Issue #69: Spring 1998

» Identifying What is Harmful or Inappropriate for Minors White Paper Submitted to the Committee on Tools and Strategies for Protecting Kids From Pornography and Their Applicability to Other Inappropriate Internet Content
Marjorie Heins, Director
Free Expression Policy Project
NCAC
"In the Playboy Entertainment case, expert witnesses for both the government and Playboy testified at trial that there is no empirical body of evidence of harm to minors from exposure to pornography. (The case involved a challenge to a statute restricting sexually explicit or "indecent" signal bleed on cable television.)"
"For example, an experiment in 1980 asked 75 adolescent girls, half of them pregnant, about their television viewing habits. Overall, the pregnant ones watched more TV soap operas and were somewhat less likely to think that their favorite characters would use contraceptives. But as the authors said, it is "difficult to know if television portrayals are encouraging adolescents to be unrealistic about sexual relationships [that is, not using contraceptives], or if unrealistic adolescents identify with the glamorized TV portrayals."

» American Amusement Machine v. Kendrick Brief Amici Curiae
"The amici curiae are scholars and authors specializing in the field of media and communications who are concerned about the misrepresentations and distortions that have, for many years, characterized political discourse on social science research into the effects of "media violence." The district court in this case relied upon such research to rule that Indianapolis "had a solidly reasonable basis" for barring access by any person under 18 to any video game that contains simulated "graphic violence" and that is considered "harmful to minors." Amici submit this brief in the hope that its discussion of the social science literature may assist the court in evaluating whether Indianapolis in fact had any scientific or empirical justification for its censorship law.

» Collateral Damage by Joan E. Bertin
Issue #89: Spring 2003
Joan Bertin discusses the Iraq war's toll on free speech.

» An Unknown Casualty by Tom Wicker
The New York Times/In The Nation
March 20, 1991
Censorship during the Persian Gulf war.

» Postcards from Buster Episode Pulled
The Public Broadcasting System pulled an episode of a children's show, Postcards from Buster, when Education Secretary Margaret Spellings complained. In the segment, Buster, a rabbit, learns how maple sugar is made in Vermont at the home of children with two female parents. The Department supported the show to encourage diversity but "not to introduce this kind of subject matter to children," Spellings said.
Related:
» Statement of Protest Against Department of Education's Effort to Censor PBS February 1, 2005
On her second day as Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings sent a letter to PBS in which she pressured the network into canceling an episode of "Postcards from Buster," a children's program intended to teach about diversity. The program, which is about making maple syrup and dairy farming in Vermont, features a household headed by two women. Their relationship is not defined, nor is sexual orientation mentioned. Nevertheless, fearing that some "parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in the episode," Ms. Spellings suggested PBS refund federal money spent on the show and issued a warning to PBS about future support.

» Sex, Lies and Videotape by Joan E. Bertin Issue #97: Spring 2005 Joan Bertin discusses Armstrong Williams, Jeff Gannon and State Department produced "video news releases," which masquerade as news but in fact are produced by the government to promote its policies.

» Censoring Scientific Information Issue #91: Fall 2003
The scientific data on which Americans rely is being manipulated by the Bush Administration, according to a new report, Politics and Science, prepared for Representative Henry Waxman of California by minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform
Prescription Drug Advertising

» Why Stop Dr. Laura? by Joan E. Bertin
Issue #78: Summer 2000

» Frequently Asked Questions about Censorship Some efforts to censor television are legal.

» In Defense of PBS Issue #60: December 1995
William F. Fore, convenor and former chair of the National Coalition Against Censorship, wrote a comprehensive analysis of the history and politics of Public Broadcasting for the July 5-12, 1995 Christian Century. An excerpt is reprinted at the following link.

» Public Broadcasting Caught in the Culture War Issue #98: Summer 2005

» Congress Acts on "Indecency"
The House of Representatives garnered broad bipartisan support for a bill to raise the top fines for broadcast "indecency" from $32,000 to $500,000. The fines could apply to commentators, talk show hosts, musicians and filmmakers if images they produce or words they speak on the air are judged "indecent." Broadcasters would be subject to the same penalties, making those with low budgets especially vulnerable. A proposal to allow the FCC to impose "indecency" sanctions on cable and satellite is also pending.
Fear of fines has led broadcasters to refuse to air anything potentially controversial including the highly acclaimed World War II film, Saving Private Ryan (Censorship News 96). Representative Bernard Sanders (Vermont) cited this chill on creativity as a reason to oppose the legislation. Others who spoke in opposition include Janice Schakowsky (Illinois), Henry Waxman and Diane Watson (California), John Conyers (Michigan) and Maurice Hinchey (New York).

» ABC affiliates refuse to air the Academy Award-winning film, Saving Private Ryan
Issue #96: Winter 2004-2005
The Sinclair Broadcast Group and dozens of other ABC affiliates refused to air the Academy Award-winning film, Saving Private Ryan-a searing portrayal of the trauma of war. The affiliates were afraid that the salty language of World War II soldiers and depictions of wartime violence would trigger FCC fines for "indecency." Most of ABC's 225 affiliates commemorated Veterans' Day by airing the film.
In deference to the religious right, CBS and NBC refused an advertisement from the United Church of Christ, claiming it is "too controversial." The ad states that: "like Jesus-the United Church of Christ seeks to welcome all people, regardless of ability, age, race, economic circumstance, or sexual orientation."

» Concerned Women for America and Parents Television Council Lead the Charge for "Cable a la Carte."
Issue #95: Fall 2004
In the latest battle in the television "decency" debate, Concerned Women for America and Parents Television Council are leading the charge for "cable a la carte." Cable operators currently package programs to appeal to a diverse audience, including "niche" markets that might otherwise be economically unfeasible. "Cable a la carte" would require operators to offer channels individually rather than as a package, and could make some programming options more vulnerable to consumer complaints. CWA and PTC also want the government to offer a "family-friendly" basic programming package, likely placing the Federal Communications Commission in the dangerous position of playing content police. Many civil rights and religious organizations believe "cable a la carte" would jeopardize diversity in programming, drive community-based channels out of the market, and increase consumer prices.

» The Department of Education Denies Funding for Closed-captioning
Issue #93: Spring 2004
The Department of Education has denied funding for closed-captioning for some 200 programs, including Law and Order, Power Rangers, The Simpsons, Sanford and Son, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and many sports programs. The National Association for the Deaf's Kelby Brick said, "We are outraged that the department has taken paternalistic steps to exclude deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Such censorship is offensive and insulting."

» New Federal Communications Commission Rules
Issue #91: Fall 2003
The new Federal Communications Commission rules to allow media conglomerates to expand have been stayed by a federal appeals court in Philadelphia. Congressional majorities are opposed to the new rules but will need enough votes to override President Bush's expected veto.

» Voices of Protest are Getting Through Issue #90: Summer 2003
Once again, voices of protest are getting through. In response to wide public objections to the FCC new rules that allow media conglomerates to expand, Congress is taking action to rollback the FCC's move (click here for NCAC's action alert). A bipartisan group of legislators appears likely to prevail in preventing more media concentration in fewer hands.

» NCAC & Journalism Groups Urge Bush Administration To Abide By Established Combat-Coverage Guidelines
» Statement of Principles » Press Release Posted December 19, 2002
In light of the ongoing war on terrorism and the potential for an attack on Iraq, the role of the press in informing the nation about public safety concerns and the military, diplomatic, law enforcement, and intelligence actions of the government continues to be tested in novel and profound ways. As advocates for journalists and press freedoms, we write to provide the Administration and Congress with steps that we believe are essential for the government to take to ensure that it honors its obligations to the public under the First Amendment.