Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The seven dirty words have been assumed to be likely to elicit indecency-related action by the FCC if uttered on a TV or radio broadcast, and thus the broadcast networks generally censor themselves with regard to many of the seven dirty words. The FCC regulations regarding "fleeting" use of expletives were ruled unconstitutionally vague by a ...
In 1978, the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's authority to fine broadcasts for indecent programming at hours when children could be listening. The landmark decision followed a 1973 airing of Filthy Words, a 12-minute monologue by comedian George Carlin that featured repetitive use of the "seven dirty words".
The Clear Channel memorandum contains songs that, in their titles or lyrics, vaguely refer to open subjects intertwined with the September 11 attacks, such as airplanes, collisions, death, conflict, violence, explosions, the month of September, Tuesday (the day of the week the attacks occurred) and New York City, as well as general concepts that could be connected to aspects of the attacks ...
HOUSTON, Texas – Every year, Oxford adds words to the dictionary based on pop culture. In 2014, it was words like "humblebrag" and "binge-watch." But every year, Lake Superior State University ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The FCC is allowed to enforce indecency laws during 6 a.m. – 10 p.m. local time. [14] In addition, for network broadcasts, offensive material seen during watershed in one time zone may be subject to fines and prosecution for stations in earlier time zones: for instance, a program with offensive content broadcast at 10 p.m. Eastern Time ...
In 2021, the FCC announced a $5 million proposed fine against right-wing operatives Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman for allegedly using illegal robocalls to discourage voting in the 2020 election.
In a ruling announced July 13, 2010, the U.S.Second Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the FCC indecency policy on fleeting expletives. Calling it "unconstitutionally vague", the unanimous three-judge panel found the policy could infringe upon the constitutionally protected First Amendment freedom of speech.