05/13/2006 12:00:00 AM PDT Indecency impossible to define, enforce
By Hannah Naiditch Pasadena [Calif.] Star News http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_3817585 FOUR TV networks, CBS, Fox, ABC and Hearst Argyle Television Inc. are challenging the FCC on indecency. They went to court seeking to have an obscenity finding overturned. They also want clearer rules. It seems like a long time ago that the First Amendment meant what it said when it stated, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech ..." The only two exceptions were libel and crying fire in a crowded theater. In 1962 the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts addressed pornography and ruled "... that, with respect to material designed for general circulation, only predominantly hard-core pornography, without redeeming social significance, is obscene in the constitutional sense." We cannot pick and choose certain words or paragraphs as obscene. We must judge works as a whole. In 1973, the Supreme Court instructed a jury to apply "contemporary community standards" in reaching a verdict. If this translates into majority rule, what happened to minority rights? Do we really want the majority to decide for each of us what we can and cannot hear or see? Our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. It does not guarantee that some of us may not at times be offended. Are we talking about political correctness, which is nothing more than an insidious form of censorship? What is indecency, anyhow, and when does indecency turn into pornography, and when does pornography turn into obscenity? Webster's Dictionary defines indecency as "grossly unseemly or offensive to manners or morals." Not much help there. It's no matter whether we talk about indecency or pornography or obscenity, because the conclusion is always the same: It is all in the eyes of the beholder. Recently the FCC has been in the news. The courts have decided that material deemed obscene can be penalized, giving the FCC, which grants radio and TV licenses, unprecedented new power. Our government is now in the business of legislating morality. Indecent broadcasts can now be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, fines that some broadcasters cannot possibly pay, fines big enough to put them out of business. The result has been self-censorship and the installing of expensive delay buttons to prevent some expressions from going on the air. Television is already guilty of dumbing us down. Intellectually challenging programs are a rarity, and we are an ill-informed people when it comes to world events. What happened to the demand to get government off our backs? The concept of indecency is closely linked to protecting kids. Indecent programs are not allowed between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when kids may be watching. This time slot also cuts off a lot of adults. The FCC defines indecency as "potently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity." Children's "innocence" is an adult fantasy, a concept that goes back to the 18th century Romantic period. Once in school, children don't need TV to hear the F-word. As far as female breasts are concerned, when did we get so puritanical to consider the human body indecent? After all, it is the female breast that supplied many children with their first meal. It is parents, not government, who should establish their moral values for their kids. Many parents prefer frank discussions over censorship. Those who are fed up with indecent programs invading their homes always have the choice to turn to another channel or to turn the program off. The vagueness of the concept of indecency should make enforcement of penalties unconstitutional. ================================ George Antunes, Political Science Dept University of Houston; Houston, TX 77204 Voice: 713-743-3923 Fax: 713-743-3927 antunes at uh dot edu Reply with a "Thank you" if you liked this post. _____________________________ MEDIANEWS mailing list medianews@twiar.org To unsubscribe send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
