Dick Umbrage (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} dickumbrage) wrote,@ 2004-03-31 13:43:00 |
|
Chilling Effect, Indeed
In the wake of the recent FCC decision ruling indecent Bono's use of the word "fucking" during a public broadcast of the Golden Globes, those of us in college radio are scratching our heads. Not only does this decision reverse the FCC's original ruling (Bono's exclamation was originally ruled not indecent), it also reverses some twenty-odd years of FCC case law.
Until March of this year, a broadcast's context determined its indecency. I'll save you the minutiae. For a word or phrase to be ruled indecent it had to refer to shitting or fucking. Fleeting and isolated exclamatory uses of the words "shit" and "fuck" weren't previously indecent because they do not describe the acts of shitting or fucking. The new standard holds these words indecent in-and-of themselves, regardless of their referent. They've broken free from the chains of context. It's unsurprising anymore that Derrida is the right-wing's enabler. I think it's time for an intervention.
But, let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's not just Colin Powell's fortunate son and associated Republicans on the Commission who are shovelling fresh manure. Remember Michael Copps, the Democratic Commissioner whose crusade against media consolidation culminated in a Mr. Smith-evoking tear-jerker of a speech on CSPAN(2)? In his statement on the Bono case, Copps dissented with the majority for being too lax. See, because the Commission had woven these rules from whole cloth, they found it in bad taste to levy an actual fine against anybody. Copps disagreed: "While I am pleased that the majority recognizes that profanity is not limited to blasphemy, I disagree that we need to give notice before we apply the law of the land."
What, you might wonder, does blasphemy have to do with anything? Good question. I hadn't gotten to that yet. It used to be that the FCC would only fine your ass if you had broadcast obscene material (which, as we all know, is not Constitutionally protected) or indecent material between the hours of 6a-10p (when kids might hear it). The actual law prohibits "obscene, indecent, or profane" material from broadcast. For the first time since 1931, the FCC cited "profanity" as a factor in its decision against the Golden Globe broadcasters. In 1931, the profanity at issue was the wily-nilly damning of people to hell by religious broadcasters. It just seemed wrong. But the Commission is clearly talking about something else nowadays. It seems that we have a brand new category of speech to worry about putting out over the air. But what the fuck is "profanity" anyway?
Nobody will tell us. The FCC, relying on a Circuit Court ruling, defines profanity as "denoting certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance." Hold on a second, "epithets naturally tending to provoke resentment?" We're not working with a robust theory of language here, friends.
Regardless, it's not very clear which words the FCC is talking about. Chairman Powell wrote in his statement that he doesn't want this decision to provoke a "chilling effect" on broadcast speech. Oh, really? Let me remind you of something, Mr. Powell. You invented an entirely new law, you put us all "on notice" that you're going to be actively applying it, and you didn't tell us what we're not supposed to do in the first place.
Is it any surprise that Colombia, MO's KCOU has suspended all regular programming following a single complaint about an indecency that aired during the Safe Harbor period, when such language is incontrovertibly legal?
In the wake of the recent FCC decision ruling indecent Bono's use of the word "fucking" during a public broadcast of the Golden Globes, those of us in college radio are scratching our heads. Not only does this decision reverse the FCC's original ruling (Bono's exclamation was originally ruled not indecent), it also reverses some twenty-odd years of FCC case law.
Until March of this year, a broadcast's context determined its indecency. I'll save you the minutiae. For a word or phrase to be ruled indecent it had to refer to shitting or fucking. Fleeting and isolated exclamatory uses of the words "shit" and "fuck" weren't previously indecent because they do not describe the acts of shitting or fucking. The new standard holds these words indecent in-and-of themselves, regardless of their referent. They've broken free from the chains of context. It's unsurprising anymore that Derrida is the right-wing's enabler. I think it's time for an intervention.
But, let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's not just Colin Powell's fortunate son and associated Republicans on the Commission who are shovelling fresh manure. Remember Michael Copps, the Democratic Commissioner whose crusade against media consolidation culminated in a Mr. Smith-evoking tear-jerker of a speech on CSPAN(2)? In his statement on the Bono case, Copps dissented with the majority for being too lax. See, because the Commission had woven these rules from whole cloth, they found it in bad taste to levy an actual fine against anybody. Copps disagreed: "While I am pleased that the majority recognizes that profanity is not limited to blasphemy, I disagree that we need to give notice before we apply the law of the land."
What, you might wonder, does blasphemy have to do with anything? Good question. I hadn't gotten to that yet. It used to be that the FCC would only fine your ass if you had broadcast obscene material (which, as we all know, is not Constitutionally protected) or indecent material between the hours of 6a-10p (when kids might hear it). The actual law prohibits "obscene, indecent, or profane" material from broadcast. For the first time since 1931, the FCC cited "profanity" as a factor in its decision against the Golden Globe broadcasters. In 1931, the profanity at issue was the wily-nilly damning of people to hell by religious broadcasters. It just seemed wrong. But the Commission is clearly talking about something else nowadays. It seems that we have a brand new category of speech to worry about putting out over the air. But what the fuck is "profanity" anyway?
Nobody will tell us. The FCC, relying on a Circuit Court ruling, defines profanity as "denoting certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance." Hold on a second, "epithets naturally tending to provoke resentment?" We're not working with a robust theory of language here, friends.
Regardless, it's not very clear which words the FCC is talking about. Chairman Powell wrote in his statement that he doesn't want this decision to provoke a "chilling effect" on broadcast speech. Oh, really? Let me remind you of something, Mr. Powell. You invented an entirely new law, you put us all "on notice" that you're going to be actively applying it, and you didn't tell us what we're not supposed to do in the first place.
Is it any surprise that Colombia, MO's KCOU has suspended all regular programming following a single complaint about an indecency that aired during the Safe Harbor period, when such language is incontrovertibly legal?
