the real significance of today's SCOTUS decision on FCC indecency rules

[onenote]

The SCOTUS today, in a 5-4 opinion (Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Robert and Kennedy in the majority) held that the FCC did not exceed its authority when, in cases involving Cher and Nicole Richie at the 2002 and 2003 Billboard awards, it reversed its prior position that "fleeting" or isolated utterance of the F-word or certain other expletives did not constitute actionable "indecent" speech under the law. But the significance of the case, which did not reach the issue of whether imposing penalties on broadcasters for an isolated expletive was constitutional, can be found in the concurring opinion of Justice Thomas and in the dissenting opinion of Justice Ginsburg. Both Ginsburg and Thomas strongly hinted that if and when a constitutional challenge to regulation of broadcast indecency is raised, they might be inclined to overrule or significantly limit the Pacifica (seven dirty words) decision. In addition -- and this is even more significant -- Thomas essentially invited someone to find a way to bring to the court a case in which the decision in Red Lion -- the case that upheld the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine -- could be "reassessed".

Things could get very interesting in the next couple of years.

[EFerrari]

1. Thanks, onenote. Some of these decisions are hard to decipher

and I usually understand just enough to know I don't understand it at all. lol