Restore FCC’s Authority On Television Indecency
- Jul 10, 2007 - 2
If you have watched any broadcast television programming recently, you have probably noticed that the level of filth and indecency is growing steadily worse. Unfortunately, television content will only continue to grow coarser unless the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is given back regulatory authority that a court snatched from it last month.
In a 2-1 decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals essentially rendered the FCC powerless to sanction broadcasters for airing fleeting, or isolated, profanities. The case deals specifically with the FCC’s decision to sanction Fox stations for airing the F-word spouted by Cher during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards and a second rendition of the F-word, along with the S-word, uttered by Nicole Richie during the following year’s Billboard Music Awards.
The two judges who issued the ruling stated that the FCC did not give a “reasoned explanation” for its change in policy to exclude fleeting expletives between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. During these hours, the FCC’s current policy prohibits indecent speech, defined as “language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs.” In 2003, it clarified that fleeting expletives also fall under this definition.
While technologies like the V-Chip can help parents regulate what their children watch, these tools have limitations. The Billboard Music Awards, for example, was tagged with a family viewing rating, meaning many parents probably permitted their children to watch the programs, thinking that obscene outbursts would not reach their living rooms. They were wrong.
The good news is that Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) will offer two amendments this Thursday to the Financial Services appropriations bill in committee to untie the FCC’s hands and restore its ability to regulate broadcasters from polluting the minds of our children. One amendment would reinstate the FCC’s ability to prohibit the use of profanity and indecent images, including fleeting expletives, on broadcast television between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children are likely to be watching. The second would give the FCC authority to prohibit those networks from airing excessive violence during those hours.
But we need your help to pass these amendments.
If you agree that the FCC should be able to prohibit obscene and violent content from infiltrating your home on broadcast television, please tell your senators to support Sen. Brownback’s amendments that would enable the FCC to prohibit broadcast television networks from airing fleeting expletives and excessively violent content.
You can call your senators by dialing the Capitol switchboard at 202/224-3121. The operator will then connect you to the senator’s office of your choice. If you do not know who your senators are, or if you would prefer to use email, just click here and enter your zip code in the space provided to send them the suggested letter or one entirely your own.
Your efforts made the difference last year when Congress passed overwhelmingly and President Bush signed into law the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which increases maximum fines for indecency violations on broadcast media tenfold, from $32,500 to $325,000 per incident. Sen. Brownback, who also sponsored that legislation, needs your help again to keep the courts from undercutting this great victory and loosening restrictions on what broadcasters can air at any hour of the day.
Thank you for taking a few moments to share your concerns with your elected leaders to help protect your children today and in the years to come. May it be said that we did all we could to clean up the programming that comes into our homes.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Children, Parenting, Pop Culture, Citizenship, Legislation, National
2 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Jul 17th, 2007, at 12:18pm, eric wrote:
On another thread, someone posing as Richard Land wrote a lengthy article against hate crimes legislation, on the basis that it would erode freedom of speech. Would the REAL Richard Land please stand up? One cannot represent both sides of the issue. The only interpretation is that Mr. Land views HIS speech as sacrosanct, and that of others something to be dismissed. At best, hypocrisy; at worst, a deceit.[that would be a sin, right?]
2 On Jul 26th, 2007, at 6:13am, Xavier wrote:
So, Richard Land is in support of hate crimes legislation now?
No lives have been destroyed by “fleeting profanities”, but many lives have been destroyed by homophobia.