Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbaccus
But I just in general don't like the FCC for this and many examples of this reason. I have never been able to grasp how the Hidden Order of Puritans have managed to keep the FCC in power despite the most basic fact that it controls what we can broadcast, essentially say, to the people, our fellow Americans. If someone can provide conflicting evidence, a well-reasoned argument to tolerate them, I'd love to hear it, please, honestly.
|
I don't know about conflicting evidence, but I can show you the other side(s) of the coin...
First, it is NOT a hidden order of puritans... much as you may choose to believe otherwise, the FCC is not constantly monitoring everything that is broadcast over the air. They are not trying to foist their own beliefs on the masses.
Enforcement of the rules happens for one of two reasons, the most common is a complaint, the other is routine inspections.
The inspections are more for compliance with both technical and management rules, but they will listen while they are there.
So, if the FCC is threatening to fine a station that means that someone complained. Now that someone could be the mayor, or a major backer of whoever is in power at the moment, but that doesn't happen a lot because those folks don't, as a rule, listen to rap<G>!
So, what most likely happened is that a lot of people complained, and when that happens the FCC investigates the complaint, and if they find against the broadcaster, they punish them. These fines, more often than not, are pretty much for effect, though they have been known to levy large fines when warranted.
Anyway, the FCC uses a rule of thumb to guage whether or not something is suitable for broadcast or not... basically they try to guage the community in which the alleged offense took place to determine if a reasonable person living in that community would be offended.
There are a couple of loopholes... in general, hate related messages are not tolerated, but even then you have to really work hard to get a fine levied because, within certain bounds, even hate messages are protected.
Example... several years ago a member of the local KKK and American Nazi Party wanted to be interviewed on a college radio station news show. The students wanted to take this guy on, the administration was less thrilled. In the end, the administration decided to let the interview take place, a point made moot when the interviewee stabbed a guard at a KKK meeting the night before the interview, thus making himself unavailable.
Was the college right in letting the interview take place?
Some might find the rhetoric spewed by a white supremecist just as offensive as others find violent rap. Who's right, and whose standards do we uphold?
The answer, at present, is the community sets the standard. That means there are places where the KKK can broadcast all their stuff without worrying about big brother, and there are other places where rap can be broadcast pretty much uncensored.
It isn't a perfect system, but then Free Speech is predicated on responsibility and tolerance, two things that sometimes seem in very short supply.