Indecency decision

[TomZ]

Do you think Michael Powell over-reached into the pockets of CBS when he decided to raise the NAL (only courts of law can render 'fines') to $300,000+ per licensee...?

One of the best complaints I ever heard regarding indecency wasn't from Jr. High language heard over the air; the lady was saying that it's a little difficult explaining to her young daughter why a 3 hour erection wasn't good.

 

[TheBigA]

One of the best complaints I ever heard regarding indecency wasn't from Jr. High language heard over the air; the lady was saying that it's a little difficult explaining to her young daughter why a 3 hour erection wasn't good.

And yet that commercial isn't indecent. Which points out some of the silliness of the government playing language police. If conservatives want smaller government, this is a good place to start.

My favorite line during the court hearings in this rule was the use of the word "capricious" in describing the rules. They're right. It's just a power play, and has nothing to do with little kids.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I don't ever remember sitting through an intelligent, academic discussion of how a culture establishes 'standards of decency" in conversation and communications... and do all cultures observe some protocol for "good manners" in communications?

In our country the prime mover seems to have been organized Christianity. And the "collective church" has not achieved this through an organized, structured mechanism. It has been left up to self-appointed block captains and vigilantes.

Some things in our Constitution and our "collective assembled laws" look back to other countries or civilizations... like the Magna Carta, etc. Is there any kind of "Gold Standard" that we turn to for instruction and inspiration when it comes to writing up rules for those who would be our "language police"?

I think if you could assemble a group of people who have worked or socialized in my presence through the years, my speech would be ranked pretty high on the "decency scale" but I must admit that in today's climate I have added a few (carefully chosen) phrases to my writing more than my spoken word. I probably won't be appointed to any new Federal Decency Commission. ;D

Once in a while I ponder the question: If I had management responsibilities in a broadcast operation today, what advice and rules would I hand out to my reports? Would it be proper to use words of questionable birth in a chapter describing just how important I consider my rules for NOT using words of questionable birth on the air?

 

[semoochie]

Just think, in some places in the world, "sex on television" means "SEX on television"!

 

[Bongwater]

Just think, in some places in the world, "sex on television" means "SEX on television"!

...And in the old days, sex on TV wasn't bad at all as long as you both didn't fall off it.... ;D

 

[nocomradio]

I think this is a subject that will probably never have any real open discussion in terms of defining what is and isn't acceptable. Most people would agree there aren't some things that should be said over the air or discussed in detail, but honestly, many people have many different views on what is and is not acceptable to them. One size doesn't fit all.

Besides, when young men and women are returning from the battlefield of a very unpopular war injured and maimed sometimes beyond recognition and its buried deep in a newscast behind the celebrity train wreck dujour, I have a very hard time listening to some petty bickering about how someone was offended by a foul word on the radio or television.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The interesting part of the decision is that it doesn't change the previous rules, it simply states that the FCC can't start changing the way that they enforce the rules without telling broadcasters that there's going to be a change.

Fleeting expletives and/or nudity weren't fined for a number of years. Then, because of the Janet Jackson incident, the FCC changed their own enforcement rules after the fact because of public pressure from the right wing. If they had simply said "You now have to delay live broadcasts and put a censor in place", they likely would have prevailed in the latest Supreme Court decision. The FCC changed their enforcement without giving broadcasters a chance to react, and the Supreme Court decided that wasn't proper.

I don't see any prevailing sentiment outside of Ruth Bader Ginsberg for throwing out indecency altogether. What needs to be clearer is what will be considered indecent, and what broadcasters are required to do to prevent it.