These cases demonstrate that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of prohibiting fleeting expletives on broadcast radio and television, in spite of previously allowing for First Amendment Protection. The main tie I see in both of these cases is that if there is a chance a child is present in the audience when this language is used, it no longer deserves First Amendment Protection. While I do agree that children should be shielded from this language, I do not feel the FCC has a place to regulate it to this extent. Our government is not responsible for controlling what speech is suitable for public ears, because it should be a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”. This regulation must come from the parents. No matter how many restrictions the FCC places, all language prohibited by broadcast will still be expressed in daily lives. Parents cannot just protect their children from this language. They also need to address it when it comes up so they can teach their children what is appropriate and inappropriate. Two clips (optional links attached) come to mind from the TV show Family Guy when a lead character faces FCC regulations after starting his own station. I believe these examples show how ridiculous censorship can get and that interchanging words to express an idea still does not change the meaning or make it less indecent.
In FCC v Fox and FCC v Pacifica, the Supreme Court did not protect the First Amendment when it comes to broadcast TV or radio. This raises the question “Should the same levels of protection apply to ALL media – print, broadcast, movies, cable, online sites, webcams/chat – or should the levels of protection vary according to medium?”. While reading the justifications behind not protecting expletives on TV or radio, I do agree that varying levels of First Amendment Protection is needed depending on the medium and content. For example, the Disney Channel should not be able to suddenly switch and put cartoons similar to Family Guy alongside their other cartoons. They have a trusted reputation amongst families and children and deciding to exercise artistic creativity in a medium where children are definitely the audience is irresponsible. Similarly, I would assign less protection when it comes to online sites specific for children (again, Disney or something along those lines) because that is the sole audience. Maximum First Amendment Protection should be given to shows and mediums geared for mature audiences, whether it is over broadcast or cable. Even though I disagree with the Supreme Court decision to overturn the lower court ruling, which found in favor of Fox Television, I still believe some of their intentions to regulate expression are reasonable. If they had strict prohibitions on expletives or obscene language for the whole time block of ABC’s Saturday Morning Cartoons, I would support that ruling because these are geared for children. However, it is not reasonable to regulate ALL content that airs during a child’s potentially awake hours from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. I would also add that movies that use expletives out of artistic considerations receive full protection. The Free Expression Policy Project emphasizes this, saying that some broadcasts such as the “expletive-laden” war film “Saving Private Ryan” are not indecent and requires the expletives out of artistic necessity.
This connects us to the question of whether adults have the same rights to create such speech for private use, distribute such speech for public consumption and receive such speech or if varying levels of First Amendment Protection also need to be applied. Because of the specific that this creation, distribution, and consumption is by adults for adults, I absolutely believe the same rights guaranteed by the First Amendment should be applied. Even with “fleeting expletive indecency”, no prohibitions should be in place as it goes against creative freedom. I agree with Fox Television and the concurring opinion of ABC, NBC, and CBS in that the FCC’s evaluation of each broadcast is limiting artistic merit.
Fleeting expletives, like what occurred at the Billboard Music Award and the Golden Globes, are usually too quick to prevent. The decision to ban fleeting expletives by the FCC are determined on three principal factors, if:
1) the explicitness or graphic nature of the description or depiction of sexual or excretory organs or activities;These are broad definitions in comparison to unprotected Political Speech, which is only called into question if the speech matches certain requirements under the harm or offense theories. Considering the question “Should words, images and sounds that stimulate erotic or sexual thoughts be granted the same protection as political speech?” and the FCC’s principals above, I believe that they should be granted the same protection as political speech for the sake of upholding the First Amendment, our freedom of expression, and promoting democracy. In the fleeting expletives case, the restrictions only passed 5 to 4. Furthermore, Justice Antonin Scalia did not address the First Amendment constitutional issue, which would question the FCC's ability to regulate such speech. Returning to FCC v Pacifica, the FCC seemed more concerned over the medium and time of day that Carlin’s “Filthy Words” were broadcast and the indecency of the language. Even with the ruling, the court specifically noted that the FCC was not sanctioning the "occasional expletive". Yet in FCC v Fox, the ruling took away more First Amendment Protections without explanation as to why they increased restrictions over expletives. Both of these cases do not allow free expression, particularly the case from last year. In an attempt to remedy these rulings, I would send the case to the Federal Appeals Court, overturn the decision in FCC v Fox, and overturn the decision in FCC v Pacifica because it is indecent parenting to subject your child to crude adult humor.
or
2) the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions of sexual or excretory organs or activities;
or
3) the material appears to pander or is used to titillate, or whether the material appears to have been presented for its shock value.
I like how you point out that even though the FCC places regulations on language on broadcast television, that the language that they censor cannot be regulated in public and in the real world, and that they are actually common to hear in public – a place where children’s “sensitive ears” are not so easily “ear muffed.” Also, that when the FCC simply replaces one expletive with another term that they deem more appropriate, it doesn’t necessarily take away from the meaning and indecency behind the speech.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you that different channels and websites, etc. should provide different content in terms of what types of speech they use, like in your example of the Disney Channel or their website not having adult content or cartoons like Southpark or Family Guy. However, I think that when it comes to the actual medium through which these things are being seen or heard, that they should get equal protection. I would apply Cohen v. California here in which shocking speech is an expression, not an action, and expression is protected because in restricting expression, you risk restricting ideas and can lead to a very slippery slope. Thus, despite the medium that is being used, to restrict the speech would violate the precedent set in this case. However, I think that certain regulations, such as not allowing expletives until later in the evening on broadcast television when children are no longer part of the main audience, that it is okay, but would not support doing this for such mediums as the internet. What I mean by this, as these two thoughts on restriction that I have seem to contradict each other, is that I would like to see all speech that involves the use of expletives in all mediums to go unpunished, but that certain regulations may be allowed to be placed depending on the time and audience of the content, as well as the manner in which they are portrayed (a weird example, for lack of not being able to think of a better one, but the difference between saying “I stepped on shit” versus “you are a piece of shit” – malicious intent, I suppose you can say). However, I like that you use the Free Expression Policy Project which emphasizes that to censor expletives in certain movies, such as “Saving Private Ryan” which is “expletive-laden”, it would take away from the artistic quality of the film, and should be allowed. I would agree with this in saying that a lot of the responsibility of protecting children from what some would think of as worthless speech is on the parent and regulating their own children’s media content, as well as educating their children about what things mean, what is right, and what is wrong.
I agree with you in that adults should have absolute protection in creating such speech for private use as well as for distributing, consuming, and receiving such speech. As I said before, I would apply Cohen v. California here in that shocking speech would be an expression, not an action, and that it is impossible to define what words are acceptable and which are not. Because shocking or provocative language, such as expletives, are expressions and therefore communicate ideas and emotions, to prohibit certain words would risk suppressing ideas, which would lead to a very slippery slope and violate our Constitutional, First Amendment right.
Hello. First of all, I like your idea that parents and the public should be in charge of censoring inappropriate contents in broadcast media. Ideally, parents should have control on what their children should watch or hear; at the same time, I think you are right that there are other mediums that are easily accessible and not strictly regulated. I think indecent speech could be overly regulated compared to obscenity and some other kinds of expression that simply, “fuck” can be punishable. As the case of Cohen v. California shows, restricting language (a word) can be difficult.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that it may be hard to regulate the broadcasting that way. In past cases like Ginsberg v NY and Miller v. California, exposing obscenity (or even sexually harmful speech) to children was one of the main concerns. Although I agree that these Fox and Pacifica cases seems to be overly regulated to me too; however, I believe that there should be some degree of censorship for broadcasting because broadcast is highly accessible even compared to the internet. Also broadcast is out there instead of the cable and the internet that people consciously make a contract to use.
I agree that all expressions should be protected under the first amendment; so, the TV stations should be able to express, as they desire. However, it is also true that children need to be protected from indecent speech. I think the different between broadcast and other mediums is that broadcast is transmitted to the public freely. Technically, viewers may not have as much control as the cable or satellite (or the internet). Because so many people have a cable nowadays, the claim may not be valid anymore. However, I think safe harbor is still appropriate in order to protect children from indecent speech.
I think the FCC regulations are as hands-off as possible. They allow material unsuitable for children to be broadcast during reasonable hours while placing restrictions on the hours that unsuitable material can be aired. You argue that parents should monitor their children and use the expletives streaming through the speakers as teachable moments. Do you really expect parents to constantly monitor the programs their children are viewing and pause to explain the expletives? That’s what the FCC is for. http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html#TheLaw
ReplyDeleteIt would be impossible for parents to vigilantly censor and explain what their children would see and hear were the restrictions lifted. This restriction of free speech is done in order to give parents the freedom to raise their children on their own schedule, at their own pace. In light of the raunchy behavior and shock-value garnering antics that already promulgate the airwaves, I think suspending the FCC regulations would only up the ante in terms of what networks would be willing to air in order to win ratings. The aim of the FCC regulations is to protect impressionable listeners. A network like ABC Family on Saturday mornings doesn’t need these restrictions because they wouldn’t air expletive laden programs. That’s not their demographic. You may say that networks airing programming not aimed at children are at an unfair disadvantage in the ratings game because of these restrictions. But in reality, they level the playing field. And since, “The FCC does not […] monitor particular programs or particular performers, but rather enforces the prohibition on obscenity, indecency and profanity in response to complaints,” I would argue that what you write is “ridiculous censorship” of the First Amendment is actually a fair process that relies on public discretion to punish those in violation of FCC regulations.