An Indecent Ruling
- Jun 5, 2007 - 1
As a father and a concerned citizen, the June 4 ruling by a U.S. Court of Appeals concerning the Federal Communications Commission’s right to penalize television networks for airing indecent language is as nearly offensive as the words the FCC was targeting.
The FCC said that expletives uttered during airings of an awards show violated guidelines stiffened by the commission last year. The FCC’s “Omnibus Order” of March 15, 2006, set a tougher standard on indecency and profanity. The agency held that grotesquely offensive language [my descriptor], even if it is “fleeting and isolated,” was at odds with its broadcast indecency policy.
It’s not that profanities and obscenities are totally banned from being broadcast. The order acknowledges what has been referred to as the “Saving Private Ryan” exception, wherein the commission determined that even if the language is indecent, if it has any “social, scientific or artistic value” it is permissible (Feb. 3, 2005 FCC order). Commissioners found that “graphic language throughout the movie was critical to portraying serious events realistically” and that viewers were warned that the special TV presentation of the film was unedited.
In its filing in the case brought by Fox television (and supported by other broadcasters), the FCC said its policy does not “permit entertainers gratuitously to utter the F-word and the S-word in awards shows broadcast on national television at a time when substantial numbers of children are certain to be in the viewing audience.”
Attorneys representing the network said the FCC was exceeding its authority and that the one-time, impromptu use of the obscene language was permissible, given that the words were not scripted. They indicated the FCC’s policy was so restrictive that it encumbered the broadcasters’ First Amendment rights.
In a 2-1 ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the FCC’s more stringent policy is “arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to articulate a reasoned basis for its change in policy.”
“We are very pleased with the court’s decision and continue to believe that government regulation of content serves no purpose other than to chill artistic expression in violation of the First Amendment,” said a Fox statement following the ruling.
To assert that the use of expletives—on television or anywhere else—is artistic expression is ludicrous.
It has been said that “when a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak—probably both.”
The English language is rich in vocabulary. A typical American uses about 2,000 words a week, out of the 500,000 words listed in The Oxford English Dictionary. It is fair to say that only a few of those words are expletives.
Sen. Daniel Inouye’s comments on the court’s decision are welcome: “It is disappointing that a divided Second Circuit panel chose to invalidate the FCC’s efforts to combat the gratuitous use of offensive language on broadcast television.”
I suppose that with all else that passes for entertainment on the public airwaves, a few expletives are to be expected (while not at all appreciated). And while it is the parents’ responsibility to monitor their children’s media diet, I would hope that the networks would exhibit some measure of responsibility and implement a delay in the broadcast of “live” events to clip out such injurious speech. V-chips, even if we could trust the broadcasters’ ratings, are useless in catching such “isolated” language.
If someone at the podium of one of these award programs launches into a racist, hate-filled diatribe, I hope there is someone in the control room with a quick finger on the mute button.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Pop Culture, Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, National
1 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Jun 5th, 2007, at 4:32pm, Rick Hudgins Jr. wrote:
I am very pleased with the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. We can only shelter our kids for so long and, at some point, it is our responsibility (*not the responsibility of the federal government, the FCC, etc.) to decide what is appropriate for our children to watch. For all the Hollywood liberal-bashing that Southern Baptists seem so prone to, why would you let your children watch these awards shows broadcasted by same said Hollywood liberals, etc.?