8/3/2019 Its Time to Change the FCCs Indecency Standards

1/1

speechandprivacy.com http://www.speechandprivacy.com/2011/11/its-time-to-change-fccs-indecency.html

It's time to change the FCC's indecency standards

Image via WikipediaOne of the old saws regulators and censors like to use is"We must protect our children." The "we" they refer to are usually religious andmoral groups who seek to use government agencies to enforce their ownspecial brand of right and wrong upon the rest of us. In the 1978 landmark

case FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 ,the FCC asserted it's right toregulate the programming of over-the-air broadcasts lest sensitive Americanshear one ofGeorge Carlin's Seven Dirty Words. At the heart of it's reasoningwas that children might be negatively affected. Since then, it's become quite acash cow for the FCC to fine broadcasters for any indecency infraction it canfind. These include the levy of a half million dollar fine for the wardrobemalfunction that accidentally showed us one second of a nipple--something thatcan easily be seen in any public theater, cable television or DVD. Though theappeals court reversed the ruling, it appears the Supreme court will once againreview the right of the FCC to enforce this law that is not only highly inequitablebut of dubious benefit as well.

An indecency standard is no brainer position for a politicians to take. Let's face it, it's much easier to sell the

constituents back home that you're protecting apple pie, motherhood and decency by endorsing a "socalled" indecency law than advocating free speech rights. I say "so called" because today's the FCC rulesapply only to over-the-air broadcasters and not the myriad of other venues for receiving information such asnewspapers, magazines, cable broadcasters, DVD producers, etc. While the courts protect the speech ofalmost every digital media provider out there, the FCC insists upon enforcing an arcane indecency standardupon public broadcasters who have every reason to provide decent programming to their target audiences.While local radio and television stations face thousands of dollars in fines and potential loss of license foraccidental slips of vulgar language or wardrobes, satellite channels pump out fully protected speech that isboth indecent, lewd, and in many cases--overtly obscene. The following Amici Curaie, provided by a numberof public interest groups, including the noted conservative Cato Institute, provides an eloquent argument onwhy it's time to rethink the FCC's public indecency standards.FCC v Fox Amici Curiae

http://www.scribd.com/doc/72496750/FCC-v-Fox-Amici-Curiaehttp://www.cato.org/http://www.scribd.com/doc/72496750/FCC-v-Fox-Amici-Curiaehttp://www.cato.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_wordshttp://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/george_carlinhttp://www.fcc.gov/http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=FCC+v.+PACIFICA+FOUNDATION,+438+U.S.+726+%281978%29&hl=en&as_sdt=2,37&case=9738309099999149495&scilh=0http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus_is_coming.._Look_Busy_%28George_Carlin%29.jpghttp://www.speechandprivacy.com/2011/11/its-time-to-change-fccs-indecency.html