Big Tech
Court Strikes Down FCC Policy on Offensive Content
WASHINGTON, July 13, 2010 – A federal appeals court on Tuesday said the Federal Communications Commission cannot continue with its policy that prohibits all “patently offensive” references to sex, sexual organs and excretion because the policy is too vague and chills speech. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan struck down the 2004 Federal Communications Commission policy in the case Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC.
WASHINGTON, July 13, 2010 – A federal appeals court on Tuesday said the Federal Communications Commission cannot continue with its policy that prohibits all “patently offensive” references to sex, sexual organs and excretion because the policy is too vague and chills speech.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan struck down the 2004 Federal Communications Commission policy in the case Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC.
“By prohibiting all ‘patently offensive’ references to sex, sexual organs and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what ‘patently offensive’ means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive,” the appeals court wrote.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said, “We’re reviewing the court’s decision in light of our commitment to protect children, empower parents, and uphold the First Amendment.”
Big Tech
Should Conservatives Be For or Against Big Tech? A Question Raised at CES 2021

WASHINGTON, July 13, 2010 – A federal appeals court on Tuesday said the Federal Communications Commission cannot continue with its policy that prohibits all “patently offensive” references to sex, sexual organs and excretion because the policy is too vague and chills speech.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan struck down the 2004 Federal Communications Commission policy in the case Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC.
“By prohibiting all ‘patently offensive’ references to sex, sexual organs and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what ‘patently offensive’ means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive,” the appeals court wrote.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said, “We’re reviewing the court’s decision in light of our commitment to protect children, empower parents, and uphold the First Amendment.”
Section 230
Crackdown on Online Conspiracy Speakers After January 6 Highlights Need for Platform Accountability

WASHINGTON, July 13, 2010 – A federal appeals court on Tuesday said the Federal Communications Commission cannot continue with its policy that prohibits all “patently offensive” references to sex, sexual organs and excretion because the policy is too vague and chills speech.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan struck down the 2004 Federal Communications Commission policy in the case Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC.
“By prohibiting all ‘patently offensive’ references to sex, sexual organs and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what ‘patently offensive’ means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive,” the appeals court wrote.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said, “We’re reviewing the court’s decision in light of our commitment to protect children, empower parents, and uphold the First Amendment.”
Big Tech
Big Tech Companies Talk the Talk on Privacy at CES 2021: Will They Walk the Walk?

WASHINGTON, July 13, 2010 – A federal appeals court on Tuesday said the Federal Communications Commission cannot continue with its policy that prohibits all “patently offensive” references to sex, sexual organs and excretion because the policy is too vague and chills speech.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan struck down the 2004 Federal Communications Commission policy in the case Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC.
“By prohibiting all ‘patently offensive’ references to sex, sexual organs and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what ‘patently offensive’ means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive,” the appeals court wrote.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said, “We’re reviewing the court’s decision in light of our commitment to protect children, empower parents, and uphold the First Amendment.”
-
Artificial Intelligence1 month ago
U.S. Special Operations Command Employs AI and Machine Learning to Improve Operations
-
Section 2302 months ago
President Trump’s FCC Nominee Grilled on Section 230 During Senate Confirmation Hearing
-
Broadband Roundup2 months ago
Benton on Middle Mile Open Access Networks, CENIC Fiber Route in California, Investors Buying Bitcoin
-
#broadbandlive3 months ago
Broadband Breakfast Live Online on Wednesday, November 18, 2020 — Case Studies of Transformative 5G Apps in the Enterprise
-
Broadband Roundup1 month ago
Trump Signs Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence, How Not to Wreck the FCC, Broadband Performance in Europe
-
5G2 months ago
5G Stands to Impact Industry Before Consumers, Says Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg
-
#broadbandlive4 months ago
Broadband Breakfast Live Online on Wednesday, September 30, 2020 — Champions of Broadband: Sunne McPeak
-
5G4 months ago
Top Executives From Dell, Dish Networks and T-Mobile Tout Details of Their Companies’ 5G Deployments