By Mallory Simon
Court TV
(Court TV) -- Five months after Motley Crue's lead singer shouted the F-word on national television, the heavy metal band has launched a legal battle that could transform how indecency is defined -- and punished.
The rockers accuse NBC of violating their free-speech rights in a suit filed last week in a federal court in Los Angeles. NBC banned the group after lead singer Vince Neil yelled the expletive during a live performance on "The Tonight Show" on New Year's Eve.
While lawmakers, regulators and members of the public have long argued over what is appropriate to broadcast on air, lawyers on both sides believe it is time for the courts to weigh in.
Doug Mirell, a First Amendment lawyer with the Los Angeles firm Loeb & Loeb, said a court ruling would put much of the debate to rest because it would finally spell out which content is acceptable for broadcast.
"The day is coming for the courts to finally define indecency," Mirell said. "The problem right now is that the FCC is purporting to enforce what I think is a vague standard."
Motley Crue would agree.
The band argues NBC discriminated against them because other musicians and guests have committed the same offense, but not received the same punishment.
Singer John Mayer, rock group System of a Down, and NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. have all uttered obscenities on NBC, but none have been banned from the network.
Kurt Wimmer, a lawyer with Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C., said Motley Crue should not have been penalized for saying the F-word because it was broadcast during the FCC's "safe harbor" period of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
NBC has released a statement calling the band's suit "meritless," arguing it has a right to decide which guests to invite back, especially when they violate broadcast standards.
John Garziglia, a lawyer with Womble Carlyle in Washington, D.C., believes the network did not illegally discriminate against the band.
"It's strictly within the rights of NBC to choose whoever they want to put on the air," Garziglia said. "I'll go even farther to say NBC is making a prudent choice. It is wise for a broadcast station not to push the line and save themselves from FCC penalties."
Although Wimmer questions why NBC banned Motley Crue and no one else, he also believes the network has a right to choose its guests.
"NBC is not a government actor, and it can respond to pressures it's under from various groups in any way it wants, including banning Motley Crue," he said.
Waiting for definition
Many lawyers see the rock band's suit as an emblem of what's wrong with the FCC's indecency regulations. But will the case spark change?
While Mirell wants federal judges to decide what constitutes indecency, he does not believe this case will lead to that "long-awaited definition."
Garziglia said he thinks the courts ultimately will decide on the issue, but warned that a courtroom ruling could have chilling effects.
"The danger of taking any of these cases to court is the entire scheme of indecency in broadcast could be found unconstitutional," Garziglia said.
John Katz, a First Amendment lawyer with Marks & Marks in Silver Springs, Maryland, said he hopes a court case would result in striking indecency regulations altogether.
"Indecency laws violate the constitution -- that's what I'd like to see the courts weigh in on, but I'm not holding my breath on that," Katz said. "Our first generations spilled their blood for the First Amendment in order for people to be able to express opinions people don't like."
Mirell hopes a move toward the courts will evoke some changes ? but doesn't believe it will happen any time soon.
"If I were to guess, in 10 to 15 years we'll still have the same regulatory scheme," he said. "In regards to this lawsuit, they don't have a chance in hell. But it sure does bring in a lot of publicity."
