{"id":54015,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/the-supreme-court-upholds-the-fccs-policy-on-fleeting-expletives.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"the-supreme-court-upholds-the-fccs-policy-on-fleeting-expletives","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/the-supreme-court-upholds-the-fccs-policy-on-fleeting-expletives.html","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court Upholds the FCC&#8217;s Policy on &#8220;Fleeting Expletives&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-container-core-columns-is-layout-9d6595d7  fl-block-columns fl-sectionWithSidebar fl-container fl-flex fl-flex-wrap fl-gap30\">\n    \n    <div class=\"fl-page-articles   fl-block-column fl-section-main fl-section-main-full-width\">\n        <div class=\"yui-g\" id=\"leftcol-module\">\n      <!-- Right Line of Links Section -->\n      <!-- BEGIN PICTURE INSERTION -->\n      <!-- BEGIN TITLE AND AUTHOR INSERTION -->\n      <table>\n        <tr>\n\n          <td width=\"100\" rowspan=\"3\" class=\"wauthor\"><a href=\"\/legal-commentary\/michael-dorf-archive\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https://supreme.findlaw.com/static/f/images\/writ\/michael.dorf.jpg\" border=\"0\" alt=\"Michael C. Dorf\"><\/a><\/td>\n\n          <td class=\"wititle\"><h1>The Supreme Court Upholds the FCC&#8217;s Policy on &#8220;Fleeting Expletives&#8221;<\/h1><\/td>\n        <\/tr>\n\n        <tr>\n          <td class=\"wauthor\"><a href=\"\/legal-commentary\/michael-dorf-archive\" class=\"graybold\"><h2>By MICHAEL C. DORF <\/h2><br><\/a><\/td>\n        <\/tr>\n        <tr>\n          <td class=\"widate\">Monday, May 4, 2009<\/td>\n\n        <\/tr>\n      <\/table>\n\n      <p>Last week, in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" rel=\"noopener\">FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.<\/a><\/em>, the Supreme Court upheld a policy established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2004, under which television and radio broadcasters could be disciplined for airing &#8220;fleeting expletives&#8221;\u2014that is, isolated uses of profanity during live shows.<\/p>\n<p>As  Julie Hilden explained in two prior columns on this site (<a href=\"\/legal-commentary\/the-fight-over-fleeting-expletives-how-a-grant-of-supreme-court-review-may-lead-to-expanded-fcc-power-and-reduced-first-amendment-rights-for-broadcasters.html\">here<\/a> and <a href=\"\/legal-commentary\/a-federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-the-fccs-fleeting-expletives-policy-on-administrative-law-grounds-was-it-right-to-do-so.html\">here<\/a>), the case  did not directly present what most Americans would likely regard as the core  legal issue raised by FCC regulation of profanity: the First Amendment  issue. Nonetheless, as both Justices  Ginsburg and Breyer noted in dissent, the First Amendment cast, or at least  should have cast, a &#8220;shadow&#8221; over the administrative law grounds upon which the  challenge to the FCC policy rested.<\/p>\n      <p><\/p>\n     \n<div id=\"writthreetwenty\">\n          <script language=\"JavaScript\" type=\"text\/javascript\">dart_call(\"300x250\", \"ptile=2\", 0) <\/script>\n<\/div>\n\n\n   <p>In this column, I shall highlight the key administrative law and First Amendment issues addressed by the Court in <em>Fox Television Stations<\/em>. I shall then turn to a peculiarity of the case: the fact that neither the majority opinion, nor any of the five concurring and dissenting opinions, uses the actual expletives involved in the case\u2014&#8221;shit&#8221; and &#8220;fuck&#8221;\u2014in describing the facts or the FCC policy. The Justices&#8217; substitution of the terms &#8220;S-Word&#8221; and &#8220;F-Word&#8221; in an opinion that is not likely to be read by more than a handful of minors, casts doubt on the claim that the underlying FCC policy, and the statute it interprets, are principally designed to protect children.<\/p>\n   \n   <p><strong>Federal Indecency Regulation<\/strong> <\/p>\n   \n   <p> A <a href=\"https:\/\/codes.findlaw.com\/us\/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure\/18-usc-sect-1464.html\" rel=\"noopener\">federal statute<\/a> bans the broadcast of &#8220;any obscene, indecent, or profane language.&#8221; In the 1978 case of <em><a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" rel=\"noopener\">FCC v. Pacifica Foundation<\/a><\/em>, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC&#8217;s determination that the ban applied to a daytime broadcast of George Carlin&#8217;s &#8220;<a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.umkc.edu\/faculty\/projects\/ftrials\/conlaw\/filthywords.html\" rel=\"noopener\">Seven Dirty Words<\/a>&#8221; monologue. That, in itself, was hardly surprising, given that Carlin expressly stated in the monologue that he was identifying words that one could not say on television (or, by implication, radio). In the course of upholding the FCC&#8217;s determination in <em>Pacifica<\/em>, the Court noted that Carlin repeated the dirty words &#8220;over and over again.&#8221;<\/p>\n   \n   <p> Following <em>Pacifica<\/em>, the FCC treated the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision as more or less both a ceiling and a floor with respect to the range of permissible regulation. It was clear that the broadcast of Carlin&#8217;s monologue or its equivalent would be deemed unlawful, but the FCC exempted fleeting expletives from the rule. If, in the course of a live broadcast, an individual were to be heard to use an isolated profanity, the FCC would not pursue any sanctions.<\/p>\n   \n   <p> That policy changed not long ago. The immediate predicate for the new policy was Bono&#8217;s prime-time statement at the Golden Globe awards: &#8220;This is really, really, fucking brilliant.&#8221; The actual case before the Supreme Court involved sanctions against Fox for two events: Cher&#8217;s statement about her critics at the 2002 Billboard Music Awards (&#8220;fuck &#8217;em&#8221;) and Nicole Richie&#8217;s statement about the show &#8220;The Simple Life&#8221; at the 2003 Billboard Music Awards (&#8220;Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It&#8217;s not so fucking simple.&#8221;).<\/p>\n   \n   <p> Abandoning any prior per se exception to the indecency ban for fleeting expletives, the FCC sanctioned Fox. In support of the new policy, the FCC cited two main grounds. First, the FCC concluded that recent improvements in &#8220;bleeping out&#8221; technology made it very easy for broadcasters to present live events without including an occasional profanity. Second, the FCC distanced itself from the prior policy of sharply distinguishing between, on one hand, profanity used to signify sex (&#8220;They didn&#8217;t fuck on the first date&#8221;) or excrement (&#8220;He thinks his shit doesn&#8217;t stink&#8221;), and, on the other hand the same words used simply as intensifiers (&#8220;This car is fucking awesome&#8221; or &#8220;Shit, I lost my wallet&#8221;). Profanity used as an intensifier derives its offensiveness from its ultimate connection to sex or excrement, the FCC reasoned, and so the distinction on which the prior policy rested was not sensible. (I shall call this argument into question below.)<\/p>\n   \n   <p> Under the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA), actions by federal administrative agencies can be challenged in court, among other reasons, on <a href=\"https:\/\/codes.findlaw.com\/us\/title-15-commerce-and-trade\/\" rel=\"noopener\">the ground<\/a> that they are &#8220;arbitrary&#8221; or &#8220;capricious.&#8221; Fox, joined by the other major networks as intervenors, argued in the lower courts that the FCC had indeed acted arbitrarily or capriciously in changing its policy regarding fleeting expletives, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed. Last week&#8217;s Supreme Court ruling, however, reversed that decision.<\/p>\n   \n   <p><strong>A Key Administrative Law Issue: When Can an Agency Change its Approach?<\/strong> <\/p>\n   \n   <p> A number of important but technical issues of administrative law were in play in the various opinions in <em>Fox Television Stations<\/em>. Here I shall highlight just one of these: Whether an administrative agency that changes a prior policy bears any additional burden of justification that it would not bear were it merely adopting the new policy as an initial matter?<\/p>\n   \n   <p> Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, thought that the answer was no. The APA contains no express requirement that changes in policy are subject to more searching review than first-time policies, and under the landmark 1978 decision in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" rel=\"noopener\">Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC<\/a><\/em>, the courts are not permitted to impose procedural requirements on federal agencies beyond those mandated by statute or the Constitution. Thus, in Justice Scalia&#8217;s view, if the FCC offered rational grounds for adoption of its new policy on fleeting expletives, then that was sufficient, regardless of whether the Commission provided good reasons for abandoning the prior policy.<\/p>\n   \n   <p> Although Justice Scalia wrote for the Supreme Court majority in <em>Fox Television Stations<\/em>, his view about a change in the law did not, itself, garner the five votes necessary to comprise a majority. The four dissenters (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) were joined on this point by Justice Kennedy, who otherwise joined the balance of Justice Scalia&#8217;s opinion. Justice Kennedy thought that the FCC was required specifically to justify its policy change, but he also thought that it had done so.<\/p>\n   \n   <p> How, in light of the no-additional-procedures rule of <em>Vermont Yankee<\/em>, did the dissenters and Justice Kennedy explain their requirement that the FCC must offer a justification for the policy change? Justice Breyer resisted Justice Scalia&#8217;s characterization of his (Justice Breyer&#8217;s) view as imposing any heightened standard of review. Rather, Justice Breyer said, actions that would not be arbitrary or capricious if undertaken in the first instance, can become so if undertaken as a later change. He provided an evocative example: A policymaker who decides in the first instance that cars should drive on the right side of the road acts rationally because either side is as good as the other; but a policymaker who decides to <u>change<\/u> the rule from left-side driving to right-side driving must provide a different explanation, because habits will have formed and investments will have been made (in car design, for example) around the expectation of left-side driving.<\/p>\n   \n   <p> That example nicely illustrates why the four dissenters plus Justice Kennedy were right in principle: Sometimes a policy change can be arbitrary or capricious even if the policy would have been permissible in the first instance. However, it is not entirely clear that the principle applied in the case before the Court. Any reliance interest that the broadcasters had built in the fleeting expletives exception would have been adequately addressed by the FCC&#8217;s decision only to eliminate the exception prospectively \u2013 not retrospectively.<\/p>\n   \n   <p><strong>The First Amendment Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n   \n   <p> So much for administrative law. What about the First Amendment? Although last week&#8217;s decision in <em>Fox Television Stations <\/em>did not directly address First Amendment issues, these issues nonetheless entered the discussion in two ways.<\/p>\n   \n   <p> First, the dissenters thought that part of what made the FCC policy change impermissible was the agency&#8217;s failure to provide an adequate explanation for how it was accounting for the First Amendment limits on broadcast regulation. The fleeting expletives exception had been based on a reading of the <em>Pacifica<\/em>case, but the FCC did not explain why it thought that its prior reading of <em>Pacifica<\/em>was no longer controlling.<\/p>\n   \n   <p> Justice Scalia, speaking for a full majority on this point, rejected the idea that a court could reverse an agency for failing to consider First Amendment issues, at least absent a judicial conclusion that the agency&#8217;s action was actually a violation of the First Amendment. But it is difficult to see what is wrong with the course proposed by the dissenters. Critics of judicial activism sometimes note that all government officials, and not just judges, have an obligation to consider the constitutionality of their actions. A judicially-imposed obligation that agencies consider constitutional issues should count as a permissible measure designed to disperse, rather than concentrate, authority for constitutional interpretation.<\/p>\n   \n   <p> The second appearance of the First Amendment in the case was even more intriguing. Justice Thomas, who joined Justice Scalia&#8217;s majority opinion, wrote a separate concurrence stating his willingness, in a future case in which the issue is squarely presented, to consider striking down <u>all<\/u> federal regulation of non-obscene indecency and profanity by broadcasters. Echoing a point that has long been made by commentators across the ideological spectrum, Justice Thomas noted how the rationale for government content regulation of broadcasting\u2014the scarcity of the electromagnetic spectrum\u2014was outdated in light of modern technology.<\/p>\n   \n   <p> To be sure, Justice Thomas twisted himself into a jurisprudential pretzel in trying to explain how his view that technological change justified doctrinal change was somehow an exemplar, rather than a repudiation, of his supposedly originalist judicial philosophy. Putting that quirk aside, however, the Thomas concurrence is quite significant in heralding the potential re-examination of a wide swath of communications law. <\/p>\n   \n   <p><strong>The Court&#8217;s Non-Use of the Expletives Themselves<\/strong> <\/p>\n   \n   <p> Finally, we come to the Court&#8217;s peculiar prudishness. It is worth noting that the Court has not always been so squeamish about profanity. In <em>Pacifica<\/em>, the Court included Carlin&#8217;s entire Dirty Words monologue as an Appendix. And in the 1971 case of <em><a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" rel=\"noopener\">Cohen v. California<\/a><\/em>, the majority opinion of Justice Harlan\u2014arguably the most conservative Justice at the time\u2014noted in the third paragraph that the case involved the display of the phrase &#8220;Fuck the Draft&#8221; on a jacket.<\/p>\n   \n   <p> Since <em>Cohen<\/em>, the Supreme Court has included variants on the word &#8220;fuck&#8221; in ten opinions (counting <em>Pacifica<\/em>). &#8220;Shit&#8221; appears in seven cases in that period. Since 1970, over 4,500 opinions (including officially unpublished opinions) of the lower federal courts have used one or both of the words &#8220;shit&#8221; and &#8220;fuck.&#8221; Yet the last Supreme Court opinion to use either of these expletives was the unanimous 1993 decision in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" rel=\"noopener\">Wisconsin v. Mitchell<\/a><\/em>, authored by the late Chief Justice Rehnquist.<\/p>\n   \n   <p> What explains the Court&#8217;s use of the terms &#8220;S-Word&#8221; and &#8220;F-Word&#8221; in <em>Fox Television Stations<\/em>? One possibility is the addition to the Court of Chief Justice Roberts. Since the <em>Mitchell <\/em>case, four Justices have joined the Court: Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito and Roberts. However, as appeals court judges, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito each either joined or authored at least one opinion that used the word &#8220;fuck.&#8221; As far as I have been able to ascertain, by contrast, Chief Justice Roberts has never authored or joined an opinion that used either &#8220;fuck&#8221; or &#8220;shit.&#8221; Perhaps the original Scalia draft in <em>Fox Television Stations <\/em>did contain the offending words, but the Chief Justice asked for their removal.<\/p>\n   \n   <p> That is just a wild guess, however. Roberts was only briefly a circuit judge, and so it is possible that given the right circumstances, he would write or join an opinion that quoted actual profanity. Thus, we must consider the possibility that the use of the locutions &#8220;S-Word&#8221; and &#8220;F-Word&#8221; in <em>Fox Television Stations <\/em>reflected something other than the current Chief Justice&#8217;s views about decorum. But what?<\/p>\n   \n   <p> The answer, I would tentatively suggest, is that the majority eschewed the actual words in the service of a substantive point\u2014namely, that words such as &#8220;shit&#8221; and &#8220;fuck&#8221; are so inherently offensive that they cannot even be used in quotation marks. (The dissenters&#8217; failure to use the words, in contrast, can be attributed to the conventions of opinion writing; the dissent typically does not restate facts discussed in the majority opinion, and it was in the fact section of the majority&#8217;s opinion that the expletives appeared.)<\/p>\n   \n   <p> But if Justice Scalia and the balance of the <em>Fox Television Station <\/em>majority accept the notion that two four-letter words are too offensive even to appear in a Supreme Court opinion, that would belie the stated rationale for regulating non-obscene indecency and profanity in the first place: to protect the tender sensitivities of children. How many children read Supreme Court opinions, after all?<\/p>\n   \n   <p> Furthermore, the child-protective rationale is unpersuasive on its face. The FCC said that the &#8220;any use of&#8221; the word &#8220;fuck&#8221; &#8220;inherently has a sexual connotation.&#8221; But if the problem is references to sex, then the FCC policy is wildly under-inclusive. One can find hundreds of clear references to sex on prime-time comedy, drama and reality network programming. Why, if the problem with &#8220;fuck&#8221; is its supposedly inherent sexual content, are these other broadcasts deemed permissible?<\/p>\n   \n   <p> Moreover, the FCC rationale is even more problematic with respect to expletives, such as &#8220;shit,&#8221; that refer to excrement. Young children are supremely interested in and amused by references to excrement. Yet the broadcast of a word such as &#8220;poop,&#8221; which young children would much more clearly understand as referring to excrement than the word &#8220;shit,&#8221; is perfectly permissible under the FCC approach. The policy thus cannot plausibly be justified as protecting children against references to sex or excrement.<\/p>\n   \n   <p> Instead, the FCC policy, reinforced by Justice Scalia&#8217;s delicate references to the &#8220;S-Word&#8221; and the &#8220;F-Word,&#8221; seems to be based on the straightforward normative position that the words &#8220;shit&#8221; and &#8220;fuck&#8221; are somehow inherently bad. That view may be widely shared, but it is at bottom a mere assertion, rather than an argument. Even worse, it is an assertion backed by considerably less logic than the contrary claim by George Carlin himself, in the original version of his dirty words monologue. Carlin said: &#8220;There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad intentions.&#8221; Fuck yeah!<\/p>\n   <p><br>\n<!-- BEGIN AUTHORS FOOTNOTE -->\n<\/p>\n  \n   <hr size=\"1\">\n<p class=\"authorfoot\">\n<a name=\"bio\" id=\"bio\"><\/a>Michael C. Dorf, a FindLaw columnist is the Robert S. Stevens  Professor of Law at Cornell   University. He is the author of <i>No Litmus Test: Law Versus Politics in the Twenty-First Century<\/i> and he blogs at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.michaeldorf.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">michaeldorf.org<\/a>.\n\n\n\n\n\n <\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"was-this-helpful\">\n    <div\n            class=\"was-this-helpful__question-container\"\n            aria-labelledby=\"was-this-helpful__question\"\n            role=\"group\"\n    >\n        <span\n                id=\"was-this-helpful__question\"\n                class=\"was-this-helpful__question fl-text-lg-bold\"\n        >Was this helpful?<\/span>\n        <button\n                class=\"was-this-helpful__button fl-text-sm\"\n                aria-label=\"Yes\"\n                value=\"yes\"\n        >\n            <span class=\"was-this-helpful__button-text fl-text-bold\">Yes<\/span>\n            <i class=\"was-this-helpful__button-icon\">\n                <svg width=\"22\" height=\"22\" viewBox=\"0 0 22 22\" fill=\"none\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\">\n                    <g id=\"thumbs-up\" clip-path=\"url(#clip0_604_3418)\">\n                        <path id=\"Vector\"\n                              d=\"M6 21H3C2.46957 21 1.96086 20.7893 1.58579 20.4142C1.21071 20.0391 1 19.5304 1 19V12C1 11.4696 1.21071 10.9609 1.58579 10.5858C1.96086 10.2107 2.46957 10 3 10H6M13 8V4C13 3.20435 12.6839 2.44129 12.1213 1.87868C11.5587 1.31607 10.7956 1 10 1L6 10V21H17.28C17.7623 21.0055 18.2304 20.8364 18.5979 20.524C18.9654 20.2116 19.2077 19.7769 19.28 19.3L20.66 10.3C20.7035 10.0134 20.6842 9.72068 20.6033 9.44225C20.5225 9.16382 20.3821 8.90629 20.1919 8.68751C20.0016 8.46873 19.7661 8.29393 19.5016 8.17522C19.2371 8.0565 18.9499 7.99672 18.66 8H13Z\"\n                              stroke=\"#666666\" stroke-width=\"2\" stroke-linecap=\"round\"\n                              stroke-linejoin=\"round\"><\/path>\n                    <\/g>\n                    <defs>\n                        <clipPath id=\"clip0_604_3418\">\n                            <rect width=\"22\" height=\"22\" fill=\"white\"><\/rect>\n                        <\/clipPath>\n                    <\/defs>\n                <\/svg>\n            <\/i>\n        <\/button>\n        <button\n                class=\"was-this-helpful__button fl-text-sm\"\n                aria-label=\"No\"\n                value=\"no\"\n        >\n            <span class=\"was-this-helpful__button-text fl-text-bold\">No<\/span>\n            <i class=\"was-this-helpful__button-icon\">\n                <svg width=\"22\" height=\"22\" viewBox=\"0 0 22 22\" fill=\"none\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\">\n                    <g id=\"thumbs-down\" clip-path=\"url(#clip0_604_3423)\">\n                        <path id=\"Vector\"\n                              d=\"M16 0.999995H18.67C19.236 0.989986 19.7859 1.18813 20.2154 1.55681C20.645 1.9255 20.9242 2.43905 21 3V10C20.9242 10.5609 20.645 11.0745 20.2154 11.4432C19.7859 11.8119 19.236 12.01 18.67 12H16M9.00003 14V18C9.00003 18.7956 9.3161 19.5587 9.87871 20.1213C10.4413 20.6839 11.2044 21 12 21L16 12V0.999995H4.72003C4.2377 0.994543 3.76965 1.16359 3.40212 1.47599C3.0346 1.78839 2.79235 2.22309 2.72003 2.7L1.34003 11.7C1.29652 11.9866 1.31586 12.2793 1.39669 12.5577C1.47753 12.8362 1.61793 13.0937 1.80817 13.3125C1.99842 13.5313 2.23395 13.7061 2.49846 13.8248C2.76297 13.9435 3.05012 14.0033 3.34003 14H9.00003Z\"\n                              stroke=\"#666666\" stroke-width=\"2\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\"\/>\n                    <\/g>\n                    <defs>\n                        <clipPath id=\"clip0_604_3423\">\n                            <rect width=\"22\" height=\"22\" fill=\"white\"\/>\n                        <\/clipPath>\n                    <\/defs>\n                <\/svg>\n            <\/i>\n        <\/button>\n    <\/div>\n    <span class=\"was-this-helpful__taken-action fl-text-sm-bold\"><\/span>\n    <div class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-container\">\n        <div class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message\" role=\"status\">\n            <p class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message-text\"><\/p>\n        <\/div>\n        <form class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-form\">\n            <div class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback was-this-helpful__feedback--positive\">\n                <fieldset>\n                    <legend class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\" tabindex=\"0\">Why was this helpful?<\/legend>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--understandable\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"positive-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Easy to understand\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--understandable\"\n                        >Easy to understand<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--solved-problem\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"positive-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Solved my problem\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--solved-problem\"\n                        >Solved my problem<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--other\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"positive-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Other\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--other\"\n                        >Other<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                <\/fieldset>\n            <\/div>\n            <div class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback was-this-helpful__feedback--negative\">\n                <fieldset>\n                    <legend class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\" tabindex=\"0\">Why was this not helpful?<\/legend>\n                    <div class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message\" role=\"status\">\n                        <p class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message-text\"><\/p>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--missing-info\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Missing Information\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--missing-info\"\n                        >Missing the information I need<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--complicated\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Too complicated\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--complicated\"\n                        >Too complicated \/ too many steps<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--dated\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Out of date\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--dated\"\n                        >Out of date<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--negative-other\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Other\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--negative-other\"\n                        >Other<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                <\/fieldset>\n            <\/div>\n            <div class=\"was-this-helpful__form-buttons-container\">\n                <button\n                    class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-button was-this-helpful__feedback-button--positive at-feedback-submit fl-button secondary\"\n                    type=\"submit\"\n                >\n                    <span class=\"fl-button-content\">Submit<\/span>\n                    <i\n                        class=\"fa fa-angle-right medium\"\n                        aria-hidden=\"true\"\n                    ><\/i>\n                <\/button>\n                <button\n                    class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-button was-this-helpful__feedback-button--cancel fl-button primary disabled\"\n                    type=\"reset\"\n                >\n                    <span class=\"fl-button-content\">Cancel<\/span>\n                    <i\n                        class=\"fa fa-times-circle medium\"\n                        aria-hidden=\"true\"\n                    ><\/i>\n                <\/button>\n            <\/div>\n        <\/form>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"was-this-helpful__thank-you-message\" role=\"status\">\n        <i class=\"was-this-helpful__thank-you-message-icon fa fa-check\"><\/i>\n        <p class=\"was-this-helpful__thank-you-message-text\" aria-live=\"polite\"><\/p>\n    <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n    <\/div>\n    \n    <div class=\"fl-block-column fl-section-sidebar\">\n        \n    <\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"parent":49876,"menu_order":0,"template":"app\/Http\/Controllers\/Templates\/ArticlePageController.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_stopmodifiedupdate":false,"_modified_date":"","_cloudinary_featured_overwrite":false},"class_list":["post-54015","supreme","type-supreme","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme\/54015","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/supreme"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme\/49876"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}