Indecency law leaves broadcasters, industry watchers guessing

By Mike Dransfield

April 13, 2005 | Is government regulation going too far?

On Feb. 16, the House of Representatives passed a bill giving the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the right to fine any public radio or TV station up to $500,000 for saying anything "obscene, indecent, or profane."

President Bush says the bill will "make broadcast television and radio more suitable for family viewing," but others claim the act is robbing Americans of their First and Fifth Amendment rights.

"This makes me wonder what we even have freedom of speech for," says Utah State University student Kathryn Leslie, 21, regarding the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. "I do not think the media should be controlled by the government."

With no clear definition of the terms "obscene," "indecent," or "profane," stations are being forced to guess what is acceptable. The FCC says it will only investigate a station when someone files a complaint.

"It is not possible for the government or FCC to decide what is 'obscene' because the definition of obscenity is different for everyone," Leslie says. "Culture, values, and experience will define people's tolerance. If someone thinks that whatever is portrayed via media is offensive or obscene, they should feel free to turn off the TV and stop the message."

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, several laws have been passed diminishing more and more individual rights, and many fearful citizens have been more than willing to give them up. In an ABC-Washington Post poll taken Sept. 12, 2001, researchers found that two-thirds of U.S. citizens were willing to give up civil liberties in exchange for protection against terrorism.

Since then, lawmakers have been increasing the amount of control imposed not only on security and privacy issues, but also on media and free speech-based on complaints from a minority of Americans. These laws include the Patriot Act of 2001, which forfeited many individual privacy rights in the name of national security, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the new Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004.

The purpose of the FCC, established by the Communications Act of 1934, was to control the use of radio waves and ensure a balanced exposure to different viewpoints because the spectrum of available sources was limited, says USU Professor Ted Pease, who calls the FCC "a dinosaur that has outlived its usefulness." With nearly infinite sources on the Internet and satellite radio and TV, Pease says that broadcast is no longer limited by the spectrum, making the original purpose of the FCC obsolete.

Pease, who is also the head of the department of journalism and communication at USU, says the FCC's recent acts against "indecency" were "spawned by an enormous conservative overreaction," which started with Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during last year's Super Bowl halftime show. The outrage that resulted from the event has led to the FCC "using authority over broadcasters to legislate ëmorality." But morality cannot be defined for all citizens.

"You are responsible for your own life. Grown-ups are entitled to see and do whatever they want as long as they aren't harming other people," Pease says.

Mississippi Rep. Charles W. Pickering supported the Broadcast Decency Enforcement bill.

"We do need to set high standards," he said in a quote posted on his Website. "The country does not want what we saw at the Super Bowl. We want to be a better nation and a better people, with better standards. We don't want to be indecent and crass and crude and profane."

Others complain that a minority of offended viewers who could easily change the channel or turn off the TV or radio should not be allowed to prevent everyone else from seeing or hearing the material.

"Quite simply, less than 1 percent of the population should not be able to tell the rest of the country what they can and cannot hear," online columnist Zachary Gutierrez writes at SomethingAwful.com. "Most complaints that the FCC receives are written by a single organization, a single entity. These aren't a million different letters from a million different people. These are the same copied letters from hundreds of people."

While the government is focusing on public media now, people are worrying that it will not stop there. Jeff Jarvis, a news columnist and former TV critic, writes on his Web site, Buzzmachine.com, "This is bigger than just broadcast. This is a fight for the constitutional, political and cultural soul of the nation."

MS
MS