Senate panel OKs single indecency bill

By Tom Strode - Jul 20, 2007 - comment

A U.S. Senate committee approved legislation July 19 to assure the federal government has the authority to rule a broadcast is indecent based on the use of one word or image.

The Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation forwarded to the full Senate by unanimous consent the Protecting Children From Indecent Programming Act, S. 1780. The bill calls for the Federal Communications Commission to “maintain a policy that a single word or image may constitute indecent programming.”

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. John Rockefeller, D.-W.Va., seeks to remedy a June ruling by a federal appeals court that undermined FCC rulings against television programs in which obscene words were used in prime time.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told Rockefeller in a July 18 letter the entity fully endorses his bill.

“Passage of this bill into law will help protect children from encountering indecent words and images on television,” Land said. “Even a single indecent word broadcast on television during regular family viewing hours can have a negative impact on children and society, and the FCC should have the ability to punish such airings for violation of indecency laws.”

In June a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York rejected FCC decisions that the uses of obscene language in live programs on Fox Channel in 2002 and 2003 were indecent. With its 2-1 ruling, the judges sent the case back to the FCC to give the agency an opportunity to explain its reasoning further.

The FCC had decided live Fox broadcasts of the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards programs violated decency standards by use of the F-word and/or S-word. The decisions followed a ruling by the FCC that a single use of the F-word on the 2003 Golden Globes Awards on NBC was indecent. That marked a change in policy for the commission, which had previously relied on a requirement that the use of an expletive must be more than fleeting.

The Second Circuit majority ruled the FCC’s revised policy “represents a significant departure from positions previously taken by the agency and relied on by the broadcast industry.” Judge Pierre Leval dissented, however, calling the revision a “relatively modest change” and saying the FCC provided a “reasoned explanation.”

The Second Circuit ruling flew in the face of recent efforts by the legislative and executive branches of the federal government to stiffen penalties against broadcast indecency. In June 2006, President Bush signed into law a measure overwhelmingly approved by Congress that increased the maximum fine for each decency violation by 10 times to $325,000.

Pro-family organizations have long criticized the sexual content, plus obscene and profane language, on prime-time television. The 2004 Super Bowl halftime show pushed the issue into the national spotlight and motivated Congress to take action. Janet Jackson’s exposure on national TV capped a controversial show and brought a deluge of criticism from many Americans, including legislators and the FCC.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Family, Parenting, Pop Culture, Citizenship, Legislation, National

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com