Arizona Lawmaker, Media Watchdog Rip FCC on Indecency Ruling
by Bill Fancher and Jody Brown
December 10, 2003
(AgapePress) - Thirty-one members of Congress have joined the campaign against the FCC over its decision to allow the use of a repulsive word on television.Just before Thanksgiving, the lawmakers shipped off a terse, four-paragraph letter [PDF] to the Federal Communications Commission, chastising it for sending a clear message to the entertainment industry that it is unlikely that standards for broadcast indecency will be rigorously enforced. The congressional representatives who signed the letter are angry at the agency's response to what happened during the Golden Globe Awards telecast in January.
In that live broadcast, U2's lead singer Bono uttered the "f-word" during an acceptance speech. After receiving and investigating complaints about the utterance, the FCC determined use of the profane term was appropriate in that setting and in how it was used. The FCC's Enforcement Bureau stated that Bono used the word "as an adjective or expletive to emphasize an exclamation" and that "offensive language used as an insult rather than as a description of sexual or excretory activity or organs is not within the scope of the [FCC's] prohibition of indecent program content." (Read FCC's Formal Response]
Numerous pro-family groups and thousands of their supporters were not impressed by the FCC's response. Neither was Arizona Republican J.D. Hayworth, one of the signers of the letter.
"The specifics surrounding the entire use of this expletive in the broadcast, I think, required the Federal Communications Commission to send a clear signal that eliminating obscenity does not infringe on anyone's creativity," Hayworth says. "Neither does the notion that this is a live broadcast and in some way [we should] forgive the lack of sophistication or sensitivity on the part of Bono or anyone who chooses to utter an expletive."
The Eagle Scout notes that the FCC has had a long tradition not of infringing on constitutional rights, but of maintaining the airwaves "in a way that promotes some modicum of sensibility." Still, he says, this is not the first time such expletives have slipped in under the censors' radar during a live telecast. Hayworth believes with current technology, the networks can manage to block such verbal expressions.
One Would Think ...
In comments last week to the FCC, the group Morality in Media called the agency's determination not only a "radical departure" from a 1978 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the federal broadcast indecency law, but also a "departure from common sense."
"One would think that in applying contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, the FCC would take into consideration the many opinion polls indicating that large majorities of the American people are concerned about and offended by TV sex and vulgarity," Morality in Media says in its comments. "One would think that the FCC would be mindful of the growing body of evidence that children are adversely affected by the vulgarity and sex they hear and view on broadcast TV."
"But is the [Enforcement] Bureau were doing what 'one would think,' how do we explain why ... the FCC has never fined a broadcast TV network affiliate for airing indecent programming that was provided by one of the networks?"
According to the media group, the FCC ruling regarding the Golden Globe Awards broadcast has "once again defined indecency down" and "extended a broad invitation to broadcasters to fill the public airwaves with dirty words."
