As of May, 2009, Decent TV has filed amicus briefs in three federal court cases, including one just decided in April in our (and your) favor in  the U.S. Supreme Court.  More information on each case follows. Decent TV has also provided much legal consulting to the Federal Communications Commission, and a number of pro-decency and family organizations with which we partner on broadcast decency issues. Decent TV has also recently filed comments with the FCC in a Congressionally mandated proceeding to investigate improved technology for parents to filter out indecent or offensive material in the usage of various media, including TV. And, we just in May, 2010, co-authored a letter with Morality in Media to the president, that was joined in by twelve other national organizations at our request. The letter requests nomination of a new U.S. Supreme Court justice who understands the case precedents that broadcast indecency laws and restrictions are constitutional, and who supports court protection for American children and unconsenting adults from pornography.

Fox v FCC, U.S. Supreme Court - WE WIN!!

The case originally appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by the networks was decided by that court in June, 2007. Decent TV's founder, Thomas North, had individually filed an amicus brief before Decent TV was formed. The Court agreed with his position, by not addressing the TV networks' challenge to the constitutionality of the federal statute restricting their broadcasting indecency. However, the Court did reverse the indecency findings of the FCC on administrative law grounds that were  not within the role or expertise of Decent TV to argue. The FCC appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which accepted the case.

Decent TV realized from press releases of Fox television something that no one else did; that they were going to attempt an "end around" by, bringing up the constitutional issue that the Second Circuit had not addressed, AFTER the FCC and its amicus had filed their briefs. This would have precluded any significant chance to respond.  Decent TV determined that it was necessary to file a brief, to pro-actively argue to the Supreme Court that: no constitutional issue was addressed by the lower court, no such issue had been appealed or was before the Supreme Court, and the Court's rules prohibit such an issue from being considered in this appeal. Decent TV did obtain consent and the necessary materials to publish and file a brief by June, 2008. Decent TV went on in its brief to argue in support of the constitutionality of the decency laws, in case the Court did violate its own rules by considering  the issue. No other party or amicus raised  the same critical arguments as Decent TV. As it turned out, the networks did attempt to violate the Supreme Court rules by arguing a constitutional issue in their later briefs. But, in oral arguments, Fox TV backed away from and told the Supreme Court it was no longer asking the Court to revisit the Pacifica case or the constitutional issue, likely as a result of the efforts of Decent TV.  

In late April, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision, agreeing with the arguments in Decent TV's brief across the board. The Supreme Court did not address or disturb the constitutionality of the existing broadcast law, leaving it in place for now. The Supreme Court also agreed with us that the actions of the FCC complied with administrative law in finding the subject broadcasts to be indecent. The Supreme Court did also agree with the FCC to remand the case to the Court of Appeals to consider the constitutional arguments, so the war is not won yet. ABC, CBS and NBC have asked the Court of Appeals to ignore Supreme Court legal precedent and the nation's broadcast decency laws. In October, Decent TV filed another brief in the case consaining numerous constitutional, legal and factual arguments as to why the networks' position is illegal and is what should be ignored.

ABC v FCC, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

This case involves a FCC fine against ABC TV affiliates for partial female nudity before 10 p.m. ABC appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing also in this case that any and all laws against broadcast indecency have become unconstitutional, and should be stricken down permanently. Decent TV filed an amicus brief in the summer of 2008 with the Court. The case was argued early in 2009, and a decision is due any day. 

US v Fox, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

In this case, the FCC fined Fox TV affiliates. The finding was not appealed, but Fox and affiliates blatantly refused to pay the fines by the legal deadline. Therefore, the US government was forced to commence collection proceedings in the District Court. Fox filed a defense, claiming that the fines and FCC indecency findings were unconstitutional, despite the law saying otherwise. Decent TV, with the gracious assistance of one of the attorneys for Parents Television Council as co-counsel, filed an amicus brief in the case. In fact, Decent TV was the only entity to file a brief other than the government and Fox TV. Fox has filed a brief in which it argues that the U.S. laws restricting broadcast indecency for the past 75 years are now somehow unconstitutional, and should be permanently stricken, allowing them to broadcast virtually any level of indecency at any time. Fortunately, our brief cites critical legal authority that the government did not, setting forth that the Supreme Court and other higher courts have already found that the laws are not vague and ARE constitutional. This case is now under advisement by the Court.

CBS v FCC, U.S. Supreme Court

This is the infamous Janet Jackson Super Bowl case in which Decent TV's founder, Thomas North, individually filed an amicus brief prior to forming Decent TV. This case is in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Phildelphia), and the legal issues are similar to Fox v FCC above, except the case involves nudity rather than language. CBS has stated in filings that it is not asking the Court to change the broadcast decency laws, but is asking to not be found responsible for the incident. Decent TV provided financing for the filing of a supplemental brief bolstering the constitutionality of the broadcast decency laws.