Finally, Nets To Sue FCC

What a great way to end the week:

Link: Nets Take Indecency Fines to Court - Broadcasting & Cable.

You may recall the week began with Sen. Ted Stevens authoring an intriguing editorial in an industry daily declaring the government should stay out of the content business. It's almost as though he were sending a cue to the networks.

The most heartening part of this story is that the networks are (a) throwing around the word "unconstitutional" to describe the FCC's March 15 indecency rulings, (b) aligning themselves with the 2000 Playboy case, which found that cable was exempt from indecency rulings because there were "less onerous" ways to regulate content than ham-fisted government enforcers.

 

I just hope the networks -- who rely on the goodwill of Congress -- have the stomach to fight this thing as far as they need to, and that this is the beginning of the end for Pacifica.

Earlier: FCC -- the definitive tirade.

And on the jump, Brent Bozell gets spittle on my glasses. (The fact that Hearst-Argyle, one of the most respected local ownership chains, is involved signals the beginning of the end of PTC's influence.)

PTC Denounces “Shameless” Actions of Broadcast Networks
Networks Want Unrestricted Access to Air Expletives on TV

LOS ANGELES (April 14, 2006) -- The Parents Television Council™ denounced the actions of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and Hearst-Argyle Television which collectively filed a court challenge to be able to air the “F-word” and “S-word” on television.  Recent FCC rulings found several programs indecent because of these expletives.

“The broadcast networks are spitting in the faces of millions of Americans by saying they should be allowed to air the ‘f-word’ and ‘s-word’ on television.  This suggestion by the networks is utterly shameless,” said L. Brent Bozell, president of the PTC.

“It’s beyond preposterous that the networks would even propose that airing the ‘f-word’ and ‘s-word’ on television is not indecent.  The networks’ principles have now been unmasked for everyone to see.  Their actions today are indecent in and of themselves.

“Memo to the networks: the broadcast airwaves are owned by the American people, and the broadcast industry must abide by community standards of decency.  This is not a proposal, it is the law that the Supreme Court affirmed many years ago.  The FCC rightly decided that the use of these words is considered indecent.  It is the networks’ responsibility to follow the law.

“In the U.S., there are rules of decent behavior and these expletives clearly cross the line.  Maybe the network executives let their children drop F-bombs at the dinner table, but there isn’t a normal family in America that would find it appropriate or decent for that language to be used by their children.  The networks have taken this fight to a court of law because they know they don’t stand a chance in the court of public opinion.

“The only thing wrong with these indecency fines is that they are not nearly tough enough to stop these networks, which have now made it crystal clear that they want to pollute the public airwaves with raunch.”

Comments

[Terry Mitchell]

I don't see the FCC's right to regulate broadcast TV during some hours as a problem. I think they should have this right because, unlike cable, the airwaves belong to the public. However, I disagree witht the way the FCC has done it. Like the networks are arguing, the rules are too vague and consistent. This causes the networks to be too timid about what they broadcast, fearing that it might be ruled indecent, even though it might now be. The FCC needs to explicitly state what can and cannot be said, shown, or done on network TV during certain hours. For example, it is indecent to show a woman's bare nipple(s) during certain hours. They should either say it is or it isn't. Right now, nobody knows. This just example.

The real question is why they feel this kind of language is appropiate. Is our society "dumbing" itself that we can not think of descriptive words to use in situations where f-bombs are usually dropped.

D1

[Rich Reynolds]

I'm staunchly opposed to censorship overall. At the same time, it's important to be mindful that there is a segment of the public that has much more conservative views of what is decent. I don't get too upset about standards for free over-the-air broadcasting. There are many times when the censors go ridiculously too far on some programming, such as not showing "Saving Private Ryan" due to violence because they'd like to think that WWII was a fun war, like on "Hogan's Heroes". On the other hand, is saying the f-word on primetime network shows really going to improve the quality of network television?

I'm more bothered by censorship being directed at pay cable where deeply conservative communities want to dictate what others are willing to pay to see. I'll concede the right for those conservative groups to have a safe haven in over-the-air broadcasts. If they don't like the programming on pay cable, then they have the right to not pay for those services. What they should not have the right to do is use their standards to dictate what every other community in the country is willing to pay to see.

I'm particularly concerned about new efforts of broad censorship by government agencies when the government's own crime statistics do not show worsening trends for violent crime. In fact, the government's own statistics show that violent crimes have steeply decreased since the 90s.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#Violence
What this tells me is that the new censorship efforts have nothing to do with more crime, but with people who want to enforce their narrow standards of decency on the entire country. It's hard for these people to prove their case that a crackdown is warranted when all violent crime is at a four decade low.

[Spencer Karter]

I heard that when CBC in Canada broadcasts "Degrassi High's School's Out" it had the f-word twice and s-word once, it wasn't bleeped in Canada, when PBS aired it, it was tooked out, and I heard s-words uttered on british crime TV shows like "A Touch of Frost" and "Inspector Morse", but why not allowed it on American TV. To me Censorship is Unpatrotic and it's unamerican and the FCC doesn't have the right to change the first amendment, everybody has freedom of speech, but what has happen to free speech? You know I don't used bad language, only a few times before, I asked the lord for forgiveness for saying profan words.