Geoff Shang writes: > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Charles Crawford wrote: > > > Interesting posting after yesterday's court ruling. > > I've obviously missed something. What ruling was this? > Here's a posting from Kelly Ford to the WebWatch list on this subject: From: "Kelly Ford" <kelly@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Delivered-To: mailing list webwatch at yahoogroups.com Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:46:00 -0800 Subject: [webwatch] Court Vacates FCC Order of Video Description As some likely know a bit ago the FCC passed an order mandating some network broadcasts include video description. The order was appealed and today the court ruled. The full ruling is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=DC&navby=case&no=011149A. The heart of the ruling said: By its terms, the Act does not provide the FCC with the authority to enact video description rules. Contrary to the FCC's arguments suggesting otherwise, ? 1, 47 U.S.C. ? 151, does not give the FCC unlimited authority to act as it sees fit with respect to all aspects of television transmissions, without regard to the scope of the proposed regulations. We hold that where, as in this case, the FCC promulgates regulations that significantly implicate program content, ? 1 is not a source of authority. Because the FCC can point to no other statutory authority, the video description regulations must be vacated. Accordingly, MPAA's petition for review is hereby granted. NFB's petition for review is dismissed as moot, because the regulations to which they object will be vacated pursuant to the court's judgment in this case.
