{"id":1151,"date":"2011-09-15T10:26:03","date_gmt":"2011-09-15T14:26:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/faithandjustice\/?p=1151"},"modified":"2011-09-14T12:27:02","modified_gmt":"2011-09-14T16:27:02","slug":"jay-sekulow-defending-the-ban-on-tv-indecency","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/09\/jay-sekulow-defending-the-ban-on-tv-indecency.html","title":{"rendered":"Jay Sekulow: Defending the Ban on TV Indecency"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a constitutional case dealing with what is broadcast on television when children are likely to be watching.<\/p>\n

In a filing at the high court, we’re defending a ban on television indecency. Our amicus brief defends the ability of government authorities to outlaw public indecency, whether in person or on broadcast TV.<\/p>\n

It may be that TV stations would prefer to cross the lines of decency in a misguided effort to boost ratings and bolster their profits. But to do so in prime time means sacrificing the protection of children \u2013 and adults \u2013 from gratuitous assaults on their sensibilities. The First Amendment right to free speech does not include indecent exposure in public settings like this.<\/p>\n

\u201cJust as a state could prohibit someone from strutting around naked in public,\u201d our friend-of-the-court brief contends<\/a>, \u201ca state may forbid companies from broadcasting into people\u2019s homes programs depicting someone strutting around naked.\u201d The ability of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prohibit broadcast indecency on TV is at stake in the case of FCC v. Fox TV<\/em> (No. 10-1293).<\/p>\n

The FCC case involves a constitutional challenge by the Fox, ABC, CBS, and NBC television networks to the FCC\u2019s enforcement of a rule forbidding obscene language \u2013 so-called \u201cfleeting expletives\u201d — during hours when children are normally part of the audience. A federal appeals court in New York City ruled in July of 2010 that the FCC\u2019s policy on foul language was unconstitutionally vague and would risk chilling protected speech. The FCC then asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Court granted the petition at the end of June and the parties are now submitting written arguments to the Court.<\/p>\n

Our amicus brief, posted here<\/a>, is focused on calling\u00a0the Court\u2019s attention to the problem of indecent nudity in broadcast programs. \u201cAn indecent television broadcast is essentially an indecent public display,\u201d the brief argues. Restricting the public exposure of a person\u2019s private parts is a proper way of protecting children, an interest the Court has recognized as \u201ccompelling,\u201d the brief notes. Moreover, our brief continues, this concern applies in full force to broadcast media like TV, given its pervasiveness and accessibility to children, \u201cwho need navigate no passcodes or lockboxes to turn on a TV set.\u201d As Justice Kennedy wrote in a 1996 decision about cable TV, \u201cThe householder should not have to risk that offensive material come into the hands of his children before it can be stopped.\u201d\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The fact is that the Supreme Court will be focusing on obscene language, not nudity, in this case. The purpose of our brief is to remind the Court that there is another whole area of indecency \u2013 indecent exposure \u2013 that the Court needs to keep in mind. It would be a terrible thing if the Court, while thinking about an occasional expletive dropping from the lips of a celebrity, inadvertently rendered a decision that undermined the important existing protections of children against public indecency, whether on the streets or on TV.<\/p>\n

While our brief supports neither party in this case, it’s request to the high court is clear: \u201cThis Court should decide this case in a way that reaffirms, rather than inadvertently undercuts, either directly or by logical implication, the constitutionality of the laws of all fifty states and the District of Columbia (set forth in the Appendix) forbidding indecent exposure.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court will likely hear oral argument in the case in the winter and issue a decision sometime in the spring of 2012.<\/p>\n

Get the latest information on all of the issues we’re engaging by visiting the Jay Sekulow<\/a>\u00a0page on our website<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a constitutional case dealing with what is broadcast on television when children are likely to be watching. In a filing at the high court, we’re defending a ban on television indecency. Our amicus brief defends the ability of government authorities to outlaw public indecency, whether in person or on…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":401,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[349,8,66],"tags":[743,353,793,352,791,351,744,350],"class_list":["post-1151","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-indecency","category-supreme-court","category-u-s-constitution","tag-aclj","tag-children-viewing","tag-fcc","tag-indecent-exposure","tag-jay-sekulow","tag-obscene-language","tag-supreme-court","tag-tv-indecency"],"yoast_head":"\nJay Sekulow: Defending the Ban on TV Indecency - Faith & Justice<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/09\/jay-sekulow-defending-the-ban-on-tv-indecency.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jay Sekulow: Defending the Ban on TV Indecency - Faith & Justice\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a constitutional case dealing with what is broadcast on television when children are likely to be watching. In a filing at the high court, we’re defending a ban on television indecency. Our amicus brief defends the ability of government authorities to outlaw public indecency, whether in person or on…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/09\/jay-sekulow-defending-the-ban-on-tv-indecency.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Faith & Justice\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-15T14:26:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2011-09-14T16:27:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/faithandjustice\/files\/2011\/09\/920036322-300x199.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jay Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jay Sekulow: Defending the Ban on TV Indecency - Faith & Justice","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/09\/jay-sekulow-defending-the-ban-on-tv-indecency.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jay Sekulow: Defending the Ban on TV Indecency - Faith & Justice","og_description":"The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a constitutional case dealing with what is broadcast on television when children are likely to be watching. In a filing at the high court, we’re defending a ban on television indecency. Our amicus brief defends the ability of government authorities to outlaw public indecency, whether in person or on…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/09\/jay-sekulow-defending-the-ban-on-tv-indecency.html","og_site_name":"Faith & Justice","article_published_time":"2011-09-15T14:26:03+00:00","article_modified_time":"2011-09-14T16:27:02+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/faithandjustice\/files\/2011\/09\/920036322-300x199.jpg"}],"author":"Jay Sekulow","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/09\/jay-sekulow-defending-the-ban-on-tv-indecency.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/09\/jay-sekulow-defending-the-ban-on-tv-indecency.html","name":"Jay Sekulow: Defending the Ban on TV Indecency - Faith & Justice","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/09\/jay-sekulow-defending-the-ban-on-tv-indecency.html#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/09\/jay-sekulow-defending-the-ban-on-tv-indecency.html#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/faithandjustice\/files\/2011\/09\/920036322-300x199.jpg","datePublished":"2011-09-15T14:26:03+00:00","dateModified":"2011-09-14T16:27:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/#\/schema\/person\/fd4c384af0620d4b82ae09cf1d77bdb4"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/09\/jay-sekulow-defending-the-ban-on-tv-indecency.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/09\/jay-sekulow-defending-the-ban-on-tv-indecency.html"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/09\/jay-sekulow-defending-the-ban-on-tv-indecency.html#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/faithandjustice\/files\/2011\/09\/920036322-300x199.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/faithandjustice\/files\/2011\/09\/920036322-300x199.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/09\/jay-sekulow-defending-the-ban-on-tv-indecency.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jay Sekulow: Defending the Ban on TV Indecency"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/","name":"Faith & Justice","description":"Jay Sekulow - ACLJ","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/#\/schema\/person\/fd4c384af0620d4b82ae09cf1d77bdb4","name":"Jay Sekulow","description":"Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization that focuses on constitutional law. He is also Chief Counsel of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ). Jay Sekulow is one of the leading defenders of constitutional rights and religious liberties in the United States. Over the past 25 years, Jay Sekulow has amassed an unparalleled record of accomplishment, arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court on 12 occasions. His aggressive litigation strategy before the Supreme Court has led to many landmark First Amendment victories. In his first case before the Supreme Court, Jews for Jesus, Jay Sekulow secured the right of religious groups to pass out tracks in airports. In Mergens, Jay Sekulow successfully protected the right of students to form Bible clubs and prayer groups on public school campuses. In Lamb\u2019s Chapel, Jay Sekulow cleared the way for churches to have equal access to public facilities in the same way that other groups are permitted to utilize those facilities. In the Bray and Operation Rescue cases, Jay Sekulow protected the free speech rights of pro-life advocates to be free from criminal prosecution for conveying their pro-life message. In McConnell v. FEC, Jay Sekulow protected the right of young people to engage in the political process by donating to the campaign of their choice. In Pleasant Grove, Jay Sekulow paved the way for governments to be able to display Ten Commandments monuments, and other monuments of their choosing, in public parks. Through the ACLJ, Jay Sekulow engages the political, legal, and cultural battles facing America today. He routinely works with Members of Congress, advising them on proposed legislation and representing them in critical legal matters. Jay Sekulow has also testified before Congress on the constitutionality of proposed legislation. Also, in addition to being a successful Supreme Court advocate, Jay Sekulow is a highly respected broadcaster. Jay Sekulow is the host of Jay Sekulow Live! which airs each weekday on over 850 radio stations nationwide, in addition Sirius and XM satellite radio. He brings insight and education to listeners daily through this national call-in radio program. He is also the host of the ACLJ This Week, the ACLJ\u2019s weekly television program. Jay Sekulow regularly appears on major media outlets, including FOX News, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC, where he is sought out for his vast experience in constitutional law and his unique insight into many of the pressing legal and political issues facing America today. He is frequently quoted in the nation's leading newspapers and often contributes opinion editorials to national publications. Jay Sekulow has also published numerous law review and other scholarly articles. Jay Sekulow has received numerous honors for his groundbreaking legal work in the area of free speech and religious liberties. The Legal Times has named Sekulow one of \u201cThe 90 Greatest Washington Lawyers of the Last 30 Years\u201d and the National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the \u201c100 Most Influential Lawyers\u201d in the United States. In addition, TIME Magazine listed Jay Sekulow as one of the \"25 Most Influential Evangelicals\" in America. Jay Sekulow\u2019s legal work in defense of religious liberties and human rights extends beyond the United States, having founded the ECLJ in Strasbourg, France, which maintains consultative status with the United Nations. He has also opened offices in Pakistan, Africa, and Jerusalem, Israel. Jay Sekulow is a staunch defender of Israel, presenting arguments before the International Criminal Court at the Hague. His efforts in support of Israel\u2019s right to defend itself from terrorist attacks have been commended by Israeli government officials, one official stating, \"Jay was instrumentally-involved in projects that the President of Israel and the Prime Minister put on our national agenda.\" Jay Sekulow also has a passion for educating the next generation of religious liberty advocates. He is a member of the Regent University Law School Faculty as a Distinguished Professor of Law and routinely teaches courses on constitutional law and presents guest lectures. Jay Sekulow has also started educational programs in international human rights law in Strasbourg, France and at Handong University in South Korea. Jay Sekulow is a graduate of Mercer University, earning both a bachelor\u2019s degree and doctor of jurisprudence. Sekulow served on the editorial staff of the Mercer Law Review and graduated cum laude. He later earned a Ph.D. from Regent University, writing his dissertation on American Legal History. Jay Sekulow also serves on the Board of Trustees for The Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, D.C. Jay Sekulow, ACLJ Chief Counsels full biography and video. Jay Sekulow on Facebook. Jay Sekulow on Twitter. Jay Sekulow on YouTube.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/author\/jay_sekulow"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1151","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/401"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1151"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1151\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1159,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1151\/revisions\/1159"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}