« Battlestar Galactica - 'Act of Contrition' | Main | Iraqis vote - who's happy, who's not »

January 29, 2005

Public v private -- the FCC

The FCC continues to be a lightening rod pitting "absolutist free-speech" advocates against "responsible/appropriate broadcasting" advocates. We've all witnessed the dust-up Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" [guffaw] caused last year, with one group calling for CBS's head and another group calling any criticism typical American puritanism. Michele posts today on a common sense quote from GW

"As a free-speech advocate, I often told parents who were complaining about content, you're the first line of responsibility; they put an off button (on) the TV for a reason. Turn it off," Bush told C-SPAN interviewer Brian Lamb.
Now in Michele's comments section, GW's quote is criticized because he hasn't stomped on the FCC and their regulatory role. Personally, I don't see a contradiction between GW's comment and the FCC's regulatory mission (and let's not forget the FCC reports directly to Congress). The broadcast frequencies are pubic property, not private. It then becomes the obligation of the government to regulate them in the same manner that it regulates public streets, public parks, public buildings. And part of that regulation is to try and define reasonable expectations for the patrons of such public "spaces."

Before a show is broadcast, people can easily find out about content from any number of sources ... TV Guide, newspapers, TV promos, word of mouth, etc. They then have a reasonable expectation and should make decision whether or not to use the on/off button on the TV. It's just plain silly, as GW says, to turn on a show you know you're going to be "offended" by and then complain about it.

Don't like your neighbors sunbathing in the nude? Well, don't put up your 8 ft ladder against their backyard fence and peer over at them!

Now, if your neighbor walks out the front door nude and saunters down the street mid-day as the neighborhood kids are riding bikes and playing hopscotch, then we have another issue and where it is entirely reasonable to call the cops.

The neighbor has moved his/her private behavior into the public arena.

And no more can the silliness of this "absolutist free speech" advocacy over all objections be illustrated than with this:

Marion County has allowed a Portland-area skinhead group to adopt a rural Salem road as part of a volunteer litter clean-up program.

The signs proclaiming that Sunnyview Road NE between Cordon Road and 82nd Avenue is sponsored by the American Nazi Party NSM were installed Monday.

County officials say they were legally advised that excluding the organization would violate a constitutional right to free speech. Their choices, they said, were: allow the group to join the program, remove all of the signs from the program or refuse the group and risk a lawsuit.

hattip LGF

Posted by Darleen at January 29, 2005 02:55 PM

Comments

- The FCC is, and always has been, a toothless tiger that serves only one purpose for congress. That is, its a bureucratic "culdesac", used to pass the hot potatoe of public airwaves censorship, since no politician with a functioning brain is about to get involved with that constitutional "hot button". Back in the days of the "V" chip, another total disaster, the sitting chairman was asked at a congressional hearing if the FCC felt it had the power to yank or suspend the license of an indigent broadcaster. The answer...."[w]ell yes...by charter we do....but we don't have the authorizing signiture or approval from congress"...Hows that for doublespeak...anyway the nipple seen 'round the world' was not something any parent could have been expected to foresee. As such, it falls to the responsibility of the broacaster, and so would be a horse of a different mammery gland. Whichever side you come down on, regarding the dustup this intentional "Nipple notoriety press trick" caused, in the end the public reaction proved once again, to be the only effective weapon against the whole sex marketing ploy. To wit. The pulling of the Budweiser Ad from the Super Bowl, featuring the same "nipple" incident as yet another marketing angle, because of fear of public backlash. As one Budweiser spoksman said..."If theres the slightest chance of alienating just a single customer whats the point". In other words, sex is a great tool for selling until it hurts the bottom line....Power through the consumer marketplace trumps moral values everytime in the corporate boardrooms....

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at January 30, 2005 12:56 AM

Certain of persons in the FCC were all set to allow the expansion of territories owned by one company. The end result would have allowed one viewpoint to be broadcast over and ever increasing area. It would have given one entity the majority of newspapers, radio and television coverage in some areas of the country. Does that sound like an attempt to exert control over what the public reads, hears, and sees? Oh yeah!
It was only after some level headed people figured out what the result would be that a cry went up to prevent a monopoly of the media. That fact that the FCC and many others in government were in agreement gives me cause to suspect mischief afoot. That is one of the tactics the Nazis used in the 1930's Germany. Control what the people read and hear and you can control their thoughts, at least in part.

Posted by: Morgan Painter at January 30, 2005 12:13 PM

It might urk folks to think that the Nazis have the right to exist at all but that is the American way. If the government, state or federal can prohibit the "free" speech of the Nazis today what other group might be next? That is one can of smelly worms you don't want opened. Allow the gov to limit the rights of one group today and yours may be next.

Besides, we need to hear the hateful rhetoric lest we forget how dangerous is the mindset of groups like this.

Side effect; when they are out "cleaning" up the street you can photograph them so you KNOW who they are.

Posted by: Morgan Painter at February 2, 2005 09:30 PM