I still believe in the good old USA, even though politics is ruining the governing process. Recent articles have shown, for instance, that the people of this country favor controls on broadcasters so that indecent content is not broadcast. So, why am I in a dizzy spin about this issue? It is the response of two of my US congresspeople in response to mail I sent to them. I wonder how much of their rhetoric is "the people" and how much is "how will this look when I am elected president in twelve years." I am not including the two men I have quoted here with that latter response.

Representative Jim Langevin of Rhode Island, in response to me asking that Congress work with the FCC to regulate indecent programs, said this to me in an email:

As you know, several incidents in the last year caused considerable public outcry and prompted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to examine current indecency regulations. Most notably, the use of an expletive by a celebrity during the Golden Globe Awards in 2003, as well as the Super bowl Halftime Show, drew the sharpest criticism from across the country. In a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee on February 11, 2004, FCC Chairman Michael Powell expressed the FCC's commitment to pursuing indecent programming violations as well as revoking broadcast licenses for egregious and continued disregard of standards. Broadcast licenses are provided to radio and TV stations at no charge with the requirement that they serve the public good. In an effort to reinforce penalties assessed for such infractions, the House of Representatives considered H.R. 3713, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, on March 11, 2004. This legislation sharply increases FCC fines for broadcasters and licensees that are found to violate current federal decency statutes. The measure also mandates that the FCC and the General Accounting Office submit to Congress annual reports of violations and the fines assessed. I was pleased to support this legislation, which passed by a vote of 399-22. H.R. 3713 has been referred to the Senate where it awaits further action. We must respect individual choice to exclude obscene or offensive language from their daily lives and ensure that parents, in particular, continue to have the tools necessary to monitor the content of the programming that their children watch and listen to. Increasing penalties will remind broadcasters to carefully consider program content before it is aired. I am also mindful, however, of the deeply-rooted right to express oneself freely in this country, and I will continue to monitor the FCC in order to ensure that they exercise diligence and sound judgment and maintain a careful balance in this area.

Some of what Jim said was what I wanted to hear, but the last paragraph still troubles me. What tools will I have had to block the halftime Super Bowl show from my son's eyes and ears? The fact that the legislation he spoke about passed by a vote of 399 to 22 shows that the people are thought to be a part of the process, but are other agendas being pursued? I'm only saying this because we're talking about Free Speech on one hand and our right to live in a society where society will not corrupt us or our kids.

The brouhaha has sent some broadcast groups scurrying to shut down potential liability in their programs, with Howard Stern suspended, Elliott and "Bubba the Love Sponge" (if this is the first time you've read this, I'm not making it up) fired and big fines for anyone who crosses the invisible line. The line is not so invisible, when you apply standards that have been in place for a long time. For example; would a school teacher be fired for saying an indecent word? Certainly, and a civil rights lawsuit would probably ensue.

Next, the tests that the FCC applied during the Bono incident at the Golden Globes last year. According to Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island,

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 326 of the Communications Act of 1934 prohibit the FCC from censoring or from interfering with broadcaster's freedom of expression. However, the Commission has been given the authority to enforce statutory and regulatory provisions restricting indecency and obscenity. Consequently, the FCC has forbid the broadcast of obscene material at all times and indecent material between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. California (413 U.S. 15), a three-pronged test was adopted to determine if material should be deemed obscene: "(a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, ... (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." The FCC found that the broadcast was not obscene because the material broadcast during the Golden Globe Awards did not depict sexual conduct and therefore does not meet the obscenity standard under Miller v. California. Additionally, the FCC defines indecent speech as "language that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary standards for the broadcast medium. The FCC found that Bono's utterance to be a fleeting and isolated remark that emphasized an exclamation, and as such, not meeting the threshold set by the test. This finding does not reflect a shift in the FCC's position, nor does it give license for the unrestricted use of profanity on broadcast television or radio stations.

To me, the last paragraph of Senator Reed's analysis of the FCC's decision is a moot point. With the broadcasters scrambling to limit the broadcast of any indecent material, an isolated incident like the Bono remark would result in huge fines. Except for one thing, read carefully: "(the utterance) a fleeting and isolated remark that emphasized an exclamation." So, is the expression "F-you" permitted in broadcast, because the word in question was used to emphasize an exclamation? Or simply the word "S--t," used alone. As a parent who cares about his children, this is ludicrous.

The larger societal problem, from my perspective (and I am not some snobby intellectual,) is that the use of the English language is in decline. Language that used to be the province of the limited-educated person who did not know the 3000 other adjectives in the English language that could be used, instead uses the seven or so words in ample quantity, without reaching for more descriptive and more variety of words. It's been a long time since we have seen the use of much of the language as opposed to a limited vocabulary where a single word is used to amplify dozens of sentences. Not exactly a universal verb or adjective.

Perhaps, I offended one of you, my readers with this post. You may want to see your "language" in use everywhere, in effect supporting your use of one of those words. As a Christian parent, I will work to see that these words, phrases and depictions are not broadcast on the radio or on television, as it is time to make the broadcasters accountable for the fact that their viewership and listenership are dependent on young people; and that they reflect society as in a mirror. And I would dream that my son will grow up, using language that accurately describes his communication and not use "shortcut" indecent or obscene words as a substitute for our rich language.

Sidebar: What is indecent on the airwaves?

|