Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
RAYCOM AMERICA, INC. ) File No. EB-02-IH-0626
) Facility #19184
Licensee of Station WMC-TV )
Memphis, Tennessee )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: March 6, 2003 Released:
March 11, 2003
By the Commission:
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny an
application for review filed May 9, 2002, by Randy Sharp
(``Sharp''). Sharp seeks review of the April 18, 2002,
letter ruling of the Chief, Investigations and Hearings
Division, Enforcement Bureau, which denied his complaint
alleging that WMC-TV, Memphis, Tennessee, aired profane
material on September 19, 2001, between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m.,
Central Standard Time, during the program ``The West Wing.''
Sharp alleges that the staff erred in failing to find that
the broadcast violated Section 1464 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1464, which prohibits, among
other things, the broadcast of profane material. Raycom
America, Inc. (``Raycom''), the station's licensee, filed a
pleading opposing Sharp's request for review on July 2,
2002.1 Sharp did not file a reply thereto.
2. Sharp's complaint arises from the station's
broadcast of the ``Two Cathedrals'' episode of the NBC-
network program ``The West Wing.'' According to Raycom, in
that episode, the show's character President Bartlet, while
alone in a church, reflects aloud on his ``personal
struggles and growth'' during an impassioned lament to God.2
Raycom represents that both the show and episode in question
have garnered numerous dramatic awards and nominations, in
addition to critical and philosophical attention on the
subject of communicating with God.3 Raycom contends that
the speech about which Sharp complains is not profane, but
was merely intended as a character's expression of
frustration with a deity who is seemingly indifferent to
instances of human suffering. For the reasons set forth
below, we find no merit to Sharp's complaint, and conclude
that the staff's April 18, 2002, letter ruling properly
found that the licensee did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 1464 by
airing the remarks in question.
3. First, Sharp argues that licensee violated the
statute by broadcasting the portion of ``The West Wing''
program wherein character President Bartlet ``scream[ed] at
God,'' and made irreverent references toward the
deity¾``[y]ou're a sonofabitch, you know that?,'' and ``have
I displeased you, you feckless thug?'' Sharp cites FCC v.
Pacifica, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) and Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S.
47, 52 (1919) as precedents that support a finding that the
language at issue is legally profane. However, the cases
Sharp relies on are inapposite.4 The courts have held that
material, such as the phrase ``god damn it'' uttered in
anger, while offensive to some, is not legally profane for
purposes of section 1464. Gagliardo v. United States, 366
F.2d 720, 725 (9th Cir. 1966) (CB radio transmission); see
also Warren B. Appleton, 28 FCC 2d 36 (1971) (broadcast of
``damn'' is not profane). The United States Supreme Court
has also struck down a state statute banning
``sacrilegious'' movies as violative of the First and
Fourteenth amendments. Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495
(1952). In so ruling the court stated: ``[i]t is not the
business of government in our nation to suppress real or
imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine. . .
.'' Id. at 505. Because we believe the language at issue
here falls within the scope of Gagliardo and Burstyn, we do
not believe it was actionably profane.
4. Secondly, it appears that Sharp did not accurately
characterize some further remarks about which he complains.
Sharp alleges that the show's character President Bartlet
uttered profanity by cursing God¾ `[t]o hell with your
punishments! To hell with you!'' However, citing the NBC
show's script, Raycom represents that the complained of
phrases were actually spoken in Latin, not English ---
``cruciatus in crucem, eas in crucem,'' which literally mean
``send your torments to the cross'' and ``may you go to the
cross.''5 Moreover, even if the Latin phrases were
understood to have the idiomatic meaning that Sharp ascribes
to them, we believe that Gagliardo and Burstyn compel the
conclusion that they are not actionable under section 1464.
Finally, it appears that the other Latin phrases uttered in
the character's broadcast soliloquy are not even arguably
profane.6
5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section
1.115 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.115, that the
application for review filed May 9, 2002, by Randy Sharp IS
DENIED; that the staff's April 18, 2002, decision IS
AFFIRMED.
6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that copies of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified
Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Randy Sharp, 411 N. Ione,
Tupelo, Mississippi, 38801, and to Rebecca S. Bryan, Vice
President and General Counsel, Raycom America, RSA Tower
20th Floor, 201 Monroe Street, Montgomery, Alabama, 36104.
A
courtesy copy shall be sent by regular mail to Andrea R.
Hartman, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel,
NBC, Inc., 330 Bob Hope Drive, Burbank, California, 91523.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
_________________________
1 On July 11, 2002, NBC, Inc. submitted remarks concurring
with Raycom's response.
2 See text of script, attached.
3 James M. Wall, Quarrelling with God, 118 The Christian
Century 36 (June 6, 2001).
4 In Pacifica, the Supreme Court discussed the government's
authority to restrict speech that is indecent but not
obscene; profanity was not at issue. In Schenck, it
discussed the circumstances in which the government may
regulate speech that poses a ``clear and present danger.''
5 See Quarrelling with God, supra. We note that the
citations in Wall's article are textually consistent with
Raycom's script of the broadcast, and that Sharp did not
dispute Raycom's account.
6 According to the article Quarrelling with God, the phrase
``haec credam a deo pio, a deo justo, a deo scito?'' means
``am I to believe these things from a righteous God, a just
God, a wise God?''; ``gratias tibi ago, domine'' means
``thank you, Lord''; and ``tuus in terra serves, nuntius
fui; officium perfeci'' means ``I was Your servant, Your
messenger on the earth; I did my duty.''