Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. | 567 U.S. 239 (2012)
A law must clearly outline the prohibited actions it regulates for it to be enforceable. But what if an agency changes how it applies a law without giving notice of the change? In Federal Communications Commission versus Fox Television Stations, Incorporated, the United States Supreme Court answered whether the F C C created an unconstitutionally vague law by changing the way it regulated indecent language and nudity without notifying television networks.
The issues in this case were first litigated in F C C versus Fox in two thousand nine, in a case known as Fox One. Three incidents of indecent language or nudity occurred on two networks—Fox and A B C. On Fox, one incident involved the singer Cher saying the F-word once during a live award ceremony in two thousand two. Also on Fox, Nicole Ritchie said the F-word and S-word one time each during a live award show in two thousand three. On A B C, in two thousand three, the television show N. Y. P. D. Blue showed a woman naked from behind for seven seconds. After these incidents occurred, a similar event happened on live television in two thousand three, where the singer Bono said the F-word during an award acceptance speech. The F C C found this single use of the F-word by Bono actionably indecent. By finding a single use of the F-word indecent, the F C C reversed its previous standard and now held that fleeting expletives or scenes of nudity were indecent. Before this change, the F C C weighed whether an expletive or nudity was repeated or used multiple times before finding it indecent. Without informing the networks of the new standard, the F C C then applied its new policy regarding fleeting expletives to the two Fox incidents and the brief nudity on A B C and held that all three events were indecent.
Fox and A B C filed suit, initiating the Fox One case. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the change in the F C C’s policy didn’t violate the Administrative Procedure Act and remanded the case to the court of appeals to address the constitutionality of the new policy. On remand, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the F C C’s new policy was unconstitutionally vague. The F C C appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
