[ql06] CON LAW: Boob Tube v 1st Amendment
- From: Stephen Kennedy <2srk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:12:11 -0500
I was reading one of the reports on Janet Jackson's revealing half-time
show in the German press. They find it really strange that anyone cares
at all. Naked breasts are common fare on TV, in magazine and newspapers
(not to mention on the beaches and in the parks) in most European
countries, and they simply don't see what the fuss is all about.
Another thing Germans find odd about the Super Bowl half-time show is
all the flags flying and paeans to American valor and virtue. Germans
have seen that sort of stuff before and know where it leads.
But enough about the Germans. Here's an American law prof's take on
whether Janet Jackson's performance would be protected by the First
Amendment.
*Warning: Long Article*
Does the First Amendment Protect Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake?
A Brief Primer on the Constitutional Law of TV Decency Regulation
By MICHAEL C. DORF
<http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf>----
Wednesday, Feb. 04, 2004
Faster than you can say "election year," the breast seen 'round the
world has given rise to a federal probe of the Super Bowl halftime show.
That's right. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell
is investigating the entire halftime show, not just the breast-baring
finale.
According to Powell, Justin Timberlake's exposure of Janet Jackson's
right breast during the closing moments of the halftime show "wasn't
even the most offensive part." Powell claims that "the whole performance
was onstage copulation."
Onstage copulation? Isn't that the definition of "music video?"
Apparently Mr. Powell is unfamiliar with most of the MTV oeuvre.
Was the halftime show unsuitable for the millions of small children
watching? Sure. But so are half the shows on prime-time television. And
more importantly, the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make
no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." How, then, can the FCC
impose fines on the halftime performers and broadcasters, as it has
threatened to do?
The late Justice Hugo Black, who fashioned himself a First Amendment
absolutist, liked to dismiss arguments for censorship by waving the
Constitution and exclaiming that "'no law' means no law." But his
brethren did not agree, and so, notwithstanding the First Amendment,
Jackson, Timberlake and the broadcasters may indeed find themselves in
hot water.
*
The Framework for FCC Regulation
*
Because licensing is necessary to prevent competing broadcast signals
from drowning one another out, Congress and the FCC have long imposed a
quid pro quo: in exchange for valuable FCC licenses, radio and
television broadcasters must accept some limits on their programming.
There is real doubt as to whether the scarcity of the electromagnetic
spectrum actually justifies limits on the content of broadcasts. Other
means of communication rely on scarce commodities as well; yet the
Supreme Court has not allowed the sort of intrusive regulation of other
media that it permits for broadcasters.
But in any event, even putting aside the differential treatment of
different media, it is clear that broadcasters still retain substantial
free speech protection. To give an obvious example, a federal statute or
regulation barring programming critical of the Iraq war would clearly
violate the First Amendment.
Such speech on matters of national importance, however, is a far cry
from a sexual display. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has upheld the
FCC's basic framework for regulating obscene and indecent programming. A
federal regulation imposes a blanket ban on "obscene" material, and
restricts broadcasts that are "indecent" (but that fall short of being
obscene) to between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., when, it is
assumed, few young children will be in the audience.
*
Are the FCC Obscenity/Indecency Regulations Constitutional?
*
Supreme Court precedents confirm the constitutionality of the FCC
regulation. Obscenity, as defined by the Court in the 1973 case of
/Miller v. California/, refers to works that, taken as a whole, appeal
to the prurient interest; contain patently offensive depictions or
descriptions of specified sexual conduct; and on the whole have no
serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Because the
Court has ruled that obscenity is not protected speech, the FCC may ban
it entirely.
By describing the "whole performance" of Timberlake and Jackson as
"onstage copulation," FCC Chairman Powell may have been laying the
groundwork for an obscenity charge. Such a charge would likely fail,
however, because the performance had serious artistic value.
The portion of the obscenity test that looks to artistic value is not
meant to distinguish between good and bad art or even between highbrow
and lowbrow art, but between art that presents itself as art and "art"
that is, in reality, a thinly veiled sex act. Thus, playing a Mahler
symphony as the background music for a hardcore pornographic movie would
not bestow serious artistic value on the film.
Whatever FTC Chairman Powell may think, the Timberlake-Jackson duet was
more than merely a sex act in the guise of art. Though hardly to
everyone's tastes, both are mainstream pop artists who have sold
millions of recordings. Their duet was better described as a very
sexually suggestive musical performance than as sex set to music.
Accordingly, the FCC will likely proceed not under the obscenity ban,
but rather under the prime-time indecency ban, which was upheld by the
Supreme Court in the 1978 case of /FCC v. Pacifica/. That decision
sustained the commission's power to sanction a New York radio station
for broadcasting George Carlin's monologue on "Filthy Words" in the
middle of the afternoon.
In /Pacifica/, the Court cited the interest in protecting children, as
well as the fact that people surfing the dial might inadvertently find
themselves listening to what the Justices described as "offensive" if
not obscene material. Since the same interest and risk are present when
it comes to television, the TV primetime broadcast indecency regulation
is constitutional according to /Pacifica/.
That leads to the key question: Could the Jackson-Timberlake duet be
deemed "indecent"?
*
Is a Bare Breast "Indecent?"
*
The FCC regulation's definition of "indecency" sets a lower threshold
than the constitutional requirements for "obscenity." It defines
indecency as "language or material that, in context, depicts or
describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary
community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or
excretory organs or activities."
Is an adult woman's bare breast necessarily indecent under this
definition? Probably not. One can certainly imagine circumstances in
which the mere sight of a bare breast would not, or should not qualify,
as indecent--a medical report on breast cancer or a frame of a
breast-feeding mother, for example.
Nonetheless, Jackson's breast was bared in a sexualized setting; her
costume was ripped open by Timberlake in the course of a number that
included the lyric, "I'll have you naked by the end of this song." The
deluge of subsequent viewer complaints and the general outcry have made
quite clear that some substantial portion of the TV audience found the
display "patently offensive."
Indeed, as far as the First Amendment is concerned, the FCC may be on
stronger ground precisely because the performance included a bare
breast. In the 2000 case of /City of Erie v. Pap's A.M./, the Supreme
Court upheld a ban on public nudity, which had the effect of forbidding
dancers at an adults-only private club from completely baring their breasts.
To be sure, there are three reasons why the /Pap's /precedent may be
inapplicable. First, the Court was fractured, producing no single
opinion that spoke for a majority of the Justices.
Second, /Pap's /involved a rationale for regulation that clearly does
_not _apply to Jackson and Timberlake. In /Pap's /the Court was
concerned about what it characterized as the "secondary effects" of the
adult entertainment industry: prostitution and other criminal activity
that tends to increase in the vicinity of such establishments. It can
hardly be argued that the brief display of Janet Jackson's breast was
likely to lead to an increase in criminal conduct in many of the places
that the Super Bowl was seen.
Third, the law at issue in /Pap's/ required female erotic dancers at
least to obscure their nipples with pasties. Janet Jackson's breast
_was_ adorned with a pasty; if /Pap's /can be read to say that there is
a constitutional right to display naked breasts in public so long as
they are decorated with pasties, then perhaps the halftime show falls on
the protected side of the line.
But that is a big "if." The /Pap's /case more generally affirms the
principle that the message of an erotic performance is not unduly
undermined by a rule requiring that dancers be at least somewhat
clothed. If that's the First Amendment rule for an audience consisting
entirely of consenting adults, it's hard to argue that the Constitution
is more permissive for a worldwide broadcast to millions of unsuspecting
viewers, including millions of minors.
*
Is State of Mind Relevant? What if the Broadcasters Did Not Know in Advance?
*
CBS, which broadcast the Super Bowl, claims that it had no advance
knowledge of the Jackson-Timberlake finale. Somewhat less credibly, MTV,
which produced the halftime show and promoted what it billed as "some
shocking moments," has also pleaded ignorance. And Timberlake has blamed
Jackson's exposure on a "wardrobe malfunction." Does it matter whether
some or all of these protestations are true?
Certainly it would be unfair to impose criminal sanctions for an honest
mistake. Suppose that during the course of the game itself, the uniform
of one of the players ripped open, exposing his genitalia. If the camera
lingered on the scene, then surely the broadcasters could and should be
held accountable. But if, as appeared to be true in the actual halftime
incident, the network cut away within a second or two, it would be hard
to find fault--unless one had reason to think that the whole incident
was planned in advance.
Thus, putting aside FCC Chairman Powell's interest in investigating the
entire halftime show, the FCC inquiry will likely focus on whether the
exposure of Jackson's breast was planned, and if so, who had advance
knowledge of it. Powell has promised a "thorough and swift" investigation.
What a terrific idea! If only such alacrity were envisioned for the
inquiry into what was known by whom about, say, Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction.
Michael C. Dorf is Professor of Law at Columbia University. His new
book, Constitutional Law Stories, is published by Foundation Press, and
tells the stories behind fifteen leading constitutional cases.
Other related posts:
- » [ql06] CON LAW: Boob Tube v 1st Amendment
