Who Needs To Limit Free Speech When You Can Coerce People To Do It Themselves
from the constitution-schmonstitution dept
As part of its puritanical "pro-family" push for decency on radio and TV, the current administration last month pushed though a tenfold increase in the fines the FCC can levy on broadcasters, making them now liable for up to $325,000 per incident. The fines seem to be meeting politicians' intentions: having a chilling effect on broadcast content and even individual performers. Part of the problem with the fines -- as broadcasters have pointed out -- is that they're unevenly applied, and that the FCC won't give clear guidelines on what is or isn't acceptable, because the commission says doing so would be an unconstitutional limit on free speech. So it's done the next best thing: raise the potential fines so high that they keep people far, far back from the invisible line of acceptability. It's a sneaky move, since they've done nothing overtly to defy the First Amendment, but they don't have to since they've gotten people so scared of the consequences of breaking these unknown standards.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
At least then you'd know what was definitely unacceptable, now there's a nebulous threat of hundreds of thousands of dollars hanging over your head, and broadcasters are going to give it a wide berth. You end up with MORE censorship, because businesses are going to play it safe now that the stakes are drastically raised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The effect is that there's plenty of classical and culturally important material that is just too risky to air these days. It's not what you think it is either. If you're a historcal blues fan, forget about hearing most Ma Raney and Bessie Smith. If you're a Shakespeare fan, forget about hearing any of his comedies. And don't even think about Aristophanes.
Making it worse, if that's possible, is that any material aired during "safe harbor" from 10PM to 6AM is likely to be subject to an obscenity (not indecency) prosecution. They've got a totally flexible and subjective standard they can use to go after any noncomm that isn't broadcasting all Jeezus all the time.
This whole crusade might seem like nothing more than an attempt to reduce all adultt Americans to the status of young children. But it's not just that. It's economic. The whole purpose is to make it easy for the religious whackos to challenge licenses of noncomms that aren't religious. Make a complaint, get a free license at renewal time.
Every indecency complaint that the FCC has acted on has been generated by some organized whacko campaign, right down to form letter complaints by people who didn't even hear the program, just a recording of it made by the religious whacko group.
Most every station I know of is locking down "indecency" completely, even during mandated "safe harbor" hours. Better safe than sorry, so no material gets aired that could even be considered even slightly risque or double entendre. That's a lot of good music that can never be aired again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Try not to be too offended when I mention that the broadcast spectrum is owned by the public and it's the publicly accountable FCC that has to maintain some order. Otherwise, over the air broadcasts will begin to look like many cable channels, and many of those channels are not welcome in the homes of those "whackos" as you so kindly refer to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: whackos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indecency on TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
duh of course the original people are going to "uphold" the decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Such vagueness is not uncommon
of natural resources and environmental protection agency
the hazardous waste production and disposal for a mid
sized electronics manufacturing company. I had a question
for the DNR field engineer and he flat out told me that
the regulation was vague because in this way they could
enforce the intent of the law. Where if it was specific
people might find says to subvert the law. Happily he
felt I was in compliance with the intent of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly. The FCC doesn't go snooping on its own. It depends on complaints from individuals, whether these individuals respond on their own or from the prodding of organizations. See also the Howard Stern debacle.
It sucks asphalt, but I prefer this to an "active" FCC..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FCC Storm Troopers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As expected
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DJs are Responsible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
censorship through intimidation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't blame them too much
On the one hand, they have the religious and conservative groups clamoring for better decency enforcement on television and radio.
On the other you have people who are doing their best to push the limit of what is acceptable.
Both sides are not hesitant to take their case to congress or court under the guise of decency or free speech. The FCC can't please either side. They could set specific boundaries. Those boundaries will be challenged in court by the side that wants to push the envelope on free speech grounds because in their eyes, any boundaries are wrong no matter where they are set. So no matter how lenient the actual boundaries are, they won't accept them.
The decency camp will also challenge the boundaries because in their eyes any boundaries (no matter how strict) set will be too lenient. They aren't as likely to challenge it in court as the other side, but they will push for congress to make more laws governing the FCC since obviously (in their point of view) the FCC isn't doing its job.
So by not setting specific boundaries, the FCC is trying to walk a middle line and not make either side happy, but not make either side angry enough to really go after them. It won't work, but I really don't see any other way they can play this as long as the two sides are unwilling to compromise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good for the FCC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good for the FCC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saying company's should hire 'responsible' DJs is tremulous at best. Personally, unsanitized entertainment is a good thing, why should I be forced to watch / listen to holier than thou tv just because someone else wants to dictate my morality.
I shouldn't. Plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It becomes a pissing war...My morality is better than your morality.
There are no REAL winners here. However, which side would you rather err on (don't forget this is PUBLIC airwaves)? The side that has finite reasoning behind what they believe and why things shoud be regulated OR the side that thinks there should be no bounds becuase any bounds are limiting of their freedoms?
I don't know, the FCC doesn't either, but right now they are getting paid more by the regulation camp. Quite honestly, I think I like it more that way. If I have a show that gets deemed offensive AND I have a group of people that are want to enjoy it, then they should be willing to pay for access to that content. This way you can at least have some control what does come into your home.
Sorry for the slightly mal-formed thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Viva la Revolution!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Decency???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thats the way the govt. works, they give you guidelines but nothing that is actually black and white.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about we just quit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Down With America
If I ever catch a break, I'm out of this country. I suggest you all do the same. Renounce your citizenship! All it entitles you to is the right to pay taxes. 20 million illegal immigrants would agree!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glad to see you go
I'll give it to you that the rich get richer because they start stacking the deck in their favor. But the poor get poorer because they would rather bitch about everything instead of making it for themselves. There are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule, but a large portion of the people that have money got it because they earned it...or they were better at something than the majority of the rest of the population.
I really wish that I could help out the truly needy with gov't programs. However, its the people that leech the system that makes me support just about EVERY gov't reduction project.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Glad to see you go
Rich get richer, poor get sick, poor die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay for it
The way I see it, all of it is just like censorship on the internet. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to view that webpage, tv channel, radio station, etc...If you CHOSE to view/listen to it, and it offended you.....well, that was your choice.
Censor yourself and stop censoring me. That's my stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I gues it's "FOR THE KIDS!"
F*CK THE KIDS. If the parents can't keep the KIDS watching Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network, throw the DAMN TV away!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed...but
Decency SHOULD be enforced. Now, the problem is what is decent and what is not. Well, the way it SHOULD work is that you elect officials who share your views...when that happens then they will vote in ways similar to your thoughts/opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Course, you could also vote, but I know that the younger generation isn't too keen on that one either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]