• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

FCC investigating Colbert Show

This is from fcc.gov:

Deciding what's obscene, indecent or profane

Each type of content has a distinct definition:

Obscene content does not have protection by the First Amendment. For content to be ruled obscene, it must meet a three-pronged test established by the Supreme Court: It must appeal to an average person's prurient interest; depict or describe sexual conduct in a "patently offensive" way; and, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Indecent content portrays sexual or excretory organs or activities in a way that does not meet the three-prong test for obscenity.

Profane content includes "grossly offensive" language that is considered a public nuisance.

Factors in determining how FCC rules apply include the specific nature of the content, the time of day it was broadcast and the context in which the broadcast took place.

Broadcasting obscene content is prohibited by law at all times of the day. Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.
 
I did not see anything wrong with what Colbert said. Even the other late night talkers defended him. Colbert will be alright regardless of whether or not they fine him.
 
The FCC routinely investigates complaints like this, whether it's Colbert's monologue or Janet's nipples. There's likely nothing to see here.
 
The only way they can fine him is if they determine it was obscene. Based on the definition above, that will be difficult, given that it wasn't "prurient." You might call it profane, but since it was after 10PM, that would be permissible.
 
Colvert should be cancelled, even Letterman, as Liberal as he is, was never this bad at viciously attacking the Republican party.
 
Agreed. The FCC is not really capable of enforcing this.
What the average person finds to be "of prurient interest" or "patently obscene"
is a moving target. It's pointless for them to even try.
 
Much ado about nothing it isn't going to get fine since it was during safe haven time. I'm not into fining networks was glad when the Supreme Court threw out award show fines & Janet boobgate fine as well in the summer of 2012 really fining networks is outdated no more 3 channels anymore the 50's, 60's are over it's 2017. American TV needs to become more like Europe where boobs are expose where I draw the line is if there was skinamax on primetime TV then you can get back to me otherwise I don't care if there is swearing little butt showing don't get why they need to blur it out but it's alright to show the baby butt on TV.
 
kenrayc said:
Colvert should be cancelled, even Letterman, as Liberal as he is, was never this bad at viciously attacking the Republican party.
Click to expand...

Have you heard of the First Amendment to the Constitution? There's a part in there about "free speech." If CBS wants to risk the hatred of conservatives in order to keep Colbert on the air, that's their right, as it's his right to say what he wants, as long as it doesn't cross the line into obscenity. AFAIK, the formula is working, because ratings for The Late Show have gotten much stronger lately. Apparently there are a lot of viewers who don't like Trump. Imagine that...
 
I contend Free Speech does not apply to a broadcast license. Not everyone can qualify for a broadcast license. It is identical to driving: not everyone can have a license to drive. To continue to drive, you agree to follow certain rules. It's not so much about free speech as responsibility involved in holding a license.

I doubt this will go anywhere, more of the FCC going through the usual steps when a complaint is filed and calling attention to it when they feel a number of complaints have been received.

While the FCC says obscenity is deemed such, in part, by community standards with the realization that those standards vary a little by community, how can the FCC determine what standards are in, say, Sioux City, El Paso, Los Angeles, New York and Birmingham, for example? What could pass in LA would make heads roll in another market. How might the FCC determine the specific community's standards? If that is true, a station could be fined in Birmingham but not in Los Angeles for the same 'bit' because community standards are a bit different.

I have always contended you can get away with much more in a major city because of the number of signal choices. In the small market you have a much wider cross-section of the population tuned to any station meaning the greater the chance of offending someone. If ratings for The Late Show are up, even following the 'incident' it would seem the 'masses' have spoken: meaning no foul here. I wonder if the complaint had any merit in the first place. In my opinion, it doesn't qualify as obscene, maybe not tasteful but certainly a ploy for better ratings.
 
b-turner said:
I contend Free Speech does not apply to a broadcast license. Not everyone can qualify for a broadcast license.
Click to expand...

That's OK...Colbert is not the one who has the license. He's just a guy with access to a platform, like any citizen who happens to host a talk show. The FCC is investigating the Colbert show, not CBS.

The community standards issue was dealt with by the courts. Lots of precedent for the courts to look at on this issue. Complaints don't have to have merit for the FCC to investigate. That's what makes this so ridiculous.
 
b-turner said:
I contend Free Speech does not apply to a broadcast license. Not everyone can qualify for a broadcast license. It is identical to driving: not everyone can have a license to drive. To continue to drive, you agree to follow certain rules. It's not so much about free speech as responsibility involved in holding a license.

I doubt this will go anywhere, more of the FCC going through the usual steps when a complaint is filed and calling attention to it when they feel a number of complaints have been received.

While the FCC says obscenity is deemed such, in part, by community standards with the realization that those standards vary a little by community, how can the FCC determine what standards are in, say, Sioux City, El Paso, Los Angeles, New York and Birmingham, for example? What could pass in LA would make heads roll in another market. How might the FCC determine the specific community's standards? If that is true, a station could be fined in Birmingham but not in Los Angeles for the same 'bit' because community standards are a bit different.

I have always contended you can get away with much more in a major city because of the number of signal choices. In the small market you have a much wider cross-section of the population tuned to any station meaning the greater the chance of offending someone. If ratings for The Late Show are up, even following the 'incident' it would seem the 'masses' have spoken: meaning no foul here. I wonder if the complaint had any merit in the first place. In my opinion, it doesn't qualify as obscene, maybe not tasteful but certainly a ploy for better ratings.
Click to expand...

True I see your point though.
 
kenrayc said:
Colvert should be cancelled, even Letterman, as Liberal as he is, was never this bad at viciously attacking the Republican party.
Click to expand...

Hang in there, kenny. He isn't that highly rated in the first place. All in good time. The First Amendment lets us know who they are, and that they're there.
 
b-turner said:
I contend Free Speech does not apply to a broadcast license. Not everyone can qualify for a broadcast license. It is identical to driving: not everyone can have a license to drive. To continue to drive, you agree to follow certain rules. It's not so much about free speech as responsibility involved in holding a license.
Click to expand...

You're right in the sense that speech on networks is restricted - they can't spew obscenities, racist taunts, or air nudity or pornography. But if Colbert's skit is ruled to NOT be obscene - and I don't think it is based on the application of the standards in the past - the FCC would have to sanction Colbert based on his disapproval of the President. That's never been done before, and where free speech comes in. Trump might like that, but it is not how things have been done, and would raise howls of protest and claims of censorship, from other broadcasters, the press, mainstream media, and probably everybody else in the media except perhaps Fox News. It could be taken to the Supreme Court, and I can't see even 9 Scalias ruling for that kind of censorship.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom