This really ticks me off (FCC)

[Dagnabit]

<blockquote>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government issued formal indecency guidelines for radio and TV broadcasters Friday, seven years after announcing its intent to do so and 27 years after the Supreme Court allowed limits on indecent material.

The Federal Communications Commission policy statement offers no radical departures from existing practice but simply spells out the agency's enforcement criteria, satisfying a 1994 agreement to help broadcasters determine what constitutes indecency.

The guidelines go beyond the list of ``seven dirty words'' made famous by comedian George Carlin -- never a basis for FCC policy -- to emphasize that context and tone are important factors in determining whether a broadcast is indecent or not.

FCC spokesman David Fiske said the guidelines are meant to provide a fleshed-out legal summary of previous indecency decisions.

``It's case law. This isn't a checklist,'' Fiske said.

Offensive descriptions of sexual or excretory acts have no place on the public airwaves, according to the FCC, which provides many examples of both decent and indecent material.

Foul language itself, such as spontaneous cursing by newscasters or an expletive-laden tirade from convicted Mafia boss John Gotti, is not indecent if it is unintentional or part of a bona-fide news story, the commission said.

The Holocaust movie ``Schindler's List,'' which depicts full nudity, and an ``Oprah'' TV show featuring explicit discussion of sexual relationships were also given the green light, as both were determined to serve a legitimate purpose.

Radio ``shock jock'' programs such as the ``Howard Stern Show'' and ``Bubba the Love Sponge,'' with their repetitive, explicit description of sex acts, were held up as examples of indecency.

Material that relies primarily on innuendo could be found indecent as well, the commission said, if its intent is unmistakable.

Programs broadcast between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. are given greater latitude, as children are less likely to be listening at those hours.

Commissioner Gloria Tristani issued a dissenting statement, saying the agency should focus more on enforcement rather than issuing guidelines that could encourage more abuse.

``This policy statement will likely become instead a 'how-to' manual for those licensees who wish to tread the line drawn by our cases,'' she said.

Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth voted to approve the report, but said the need for content restrictions may fade as the media landscape diversifies.

``As alternative sources of programming and distribution increase, broadcast content restrictions must be eliminated,'' he said.

Both Tristani and Furchtgott-Roth criticized the agency for taking seven years to issue the statement, a process that should have taken nine months according to the terms of the 1994 agreement.

Fiske said he did not know why the agency took so long.

The Supreme Court said in 1974 that the FCC has the right to regulate offensive speech on radio and television, due to the ``uniquely pervasive presence'' of the medium.

Obscene material, which is not protected by the First Amendment, is not permitted on broadcasts.</blockquote>

[Dagnabit]

OK, that's the story, now here's what gets me.

An Oprah show featuring explicit discussion is considered "decent" because it "serves a legitimate purpose", while Howard Stern is "indecent".

Is the entertainment of millions NOT a "legitimate purpose"?

If 15 million people enjoy the show, and 3 out of 5 appointed FCC commissioners find it obscene, whose votes actually count in a country founded with the words "We The People"?

[Chewbaccus]

I think a quote from The West Wing works best here.

Bartlet: "Try as you might, Leo, you're not going to get rid of the Republicans."

~Mike

[serge]

They go after people like Howard.. (for the most part) because they can milk them!

[wst3]

Originally posted by Dagnabit
OK, that's the story, now here's what gets me.

An Oprah show featuring explicit discussion is considered "decent" because it "serves a legitimate purpose", while Howard Stern is "indecent".

Is the entertainment of millions NOT a "legitimate purpose"?

If 15 million people enjoy the show, and 3 out of 5 appointed FCC commissioners find it obscene, whose votes actually count in a country founded with the words "We The People"?

Me thinks you muss the point... so what if 15 million people enjoy the show, they aren't the only ones listening... the 3 out of 5 is not the majority that decided this, the American public is!

In general, I happen to be a very strong proponent of free speech, I'd like to believe that any reasonable person can change channels so as to avoid something that is objectionable. In an ideal world, this ought to be enough.

But we aren't talking about reasonable people here (go ahead and count the resonable people, it seems do-able), we are talking about people who might not have the resources to change the channel, or who may not have the experience required to understand that a show like Stern is a big put on.

Once again, in an ideal world parents would watch their children and prevent them from being influenced by something that the parent finds objectionable. (don't waste your breathe arguing that this affects the children's rights, parents have a right and a responsibility to provide a foundation for their children!)

Anyway, the problem is that not all parents are responsible. This leads to children seeing and hearing things that their own parents might not approve of. Now this is going to happen anyway, and the resourceful parent can, as often as not turn the potential problem into a learning experience, but guidelines that make it more difficult for children to be so exposed can't be all bad.

Examples??? OK...

I'd really rather not have my 12 year old daughter watch a movie that glorifies sex for fun or drugs for recreation or violence for kicks. I can't protect her from such things forever, but for now it seems prudent to minimize the impact. Last summer she saw a movie about a boy who seduces girls for sport, and she wanted to know if such a thing were possible. We used this as an opportunity to explain that all teenage boys are pigs (seemed too early to tell her that all males are pigs<G>), and that she needed to understand that teenage boys needs and teenage girls needs did not always coincide.

But we'd have discussed this without the movie, and I think that would have been better.

Fortunately for me she thinks Howard Stern is stupid, an opinion that I would never try to argue, but there are other outlets that she likes that are beyond me. We'll deal with them as the arise, hopefully in an honest and respectful fashion (what planet?), but if the broadcasters and programmers want to help me out a little I'm all for it.

[tw]

(Warning - a post too short)

So what happened to the V-chip?