The United States Supreme Court is currently about to uphold an FCC policy that arbitrarily and unconstitutionally fines broadcasters heavily for certain lingual slippage.1
Why?
Because the FCC thinks every time anyone ever says the word “Fuck,” everyone hearing the word will think about sex, and thinking about sex is bad. Also, every time anyone ever says the word “Shit,” everyone hearing the word will think about excrement, and thinking about excrement is bad.
What the FUCK, FCC? Are we in kindergarten? Are we a nation run by puritans? Certain people spend a hell of a lot of time and money to keep proper sex education (that actually informs students about their own God-given bodies) out of public schools because why? Because it’s offensive? Those same people spend a lot of time and money chilling free speech because, as FCC attorney Gregory G. Garre would say, those words are “patently offensive under community standards for broadcasting.” The word “Shit” is violative of the policy because it deals with excrement, according to the FCC argument. However, when asked by Justice Stevens whether, then, the word “dung” would also be violative, Garre responded that it wouldn’t… because it wouldn’t be patently offensive under community standards for broadcasting.
So, here we are again, dealing with another confusing and circular argument. Goes like this:
X evokes images of Y.
We don’t like Y.
Therefore, we censor X.
Z also evokes images of Y.
But we don’t censor Z, because, as stated above, we don’t like X.
What? Didn’t get that little bait and switch? Yeah, well, I’m betting that the Supreme Court (most of Bush’s lackeys, anyway) will ignore it. The way it works is that the FCC establishes a set of standards, and then justifies that set of standards in a variety of odd ways, and when any of those justifications are challenged, the FCC comes back with the defense that the standard should stay anyway… because it’s the standard. That’s exactly what Garre was saying in Court, and more than half the Court will just nod and agree. It’s not that they really agree, it’s just that some of them probably honestly believe that children need protecting, and they think that the FCC is doing the right thing to protect those children. That’s a sad state for the Supreme Court because that’s exactly what the right-wing entities that put those conservative members of that Court in place were trying to avoid — judicial activism. In other words, they’re not interpreting law in light of the Constitution, they’re making up law, and that law (or at least fealty to the FCC “law”)2 is unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment.
In a feeble, but honorable attempt to protect free speech, the attorney for (surprise) the Fox TV network, Carter G. Phillips, told the Court that ultimately by allowing the FCC to continue the insanely high fines imposed on the utterance of a word, the Court would be allowing the regulation of the content of speech.
Read David Savage’s more detailed account in the LA Times, and protest the fucking FCC. (Even if you have to shit in a bag and leave it on their doorstep).
(Gotta love how this article will probably trigger even more at-work automatic blocking.)
Hey, if you know of any good “Protest the FCC” websites to which I can link, please post them. Thanks! One you should be aware of is the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Go check it out!
-Procrustes (what a shithead!)3
P.S. One of my favorite interviews of all time, Frank Zappa on Crossfire. Enjoy:
And props to Chrysophrase for suggesting “Fuck you Very Much, FCC” by Monty Python:
—
Joe Scarborough says “Fuck” on the air, immediately sets entire nation into state of sinful copulation.
- My readers have liked the fact that I actually do research, and cite stuff. So, for your reading pleasure, here are the oral arguments that took place November 4: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-582.pdf. Of course, I say that the Supreme Court will decide to uphold the policy, but I can’t know that for sure. (chuckle). A good resource to get caught up with this case is the Cornel University Law School’s Legal Information Institute bulletin on FCC v. Fox Television Stations. [<]
- Obviously the FCC can’t write laws, since it’s an executive agency, and executive agencies are only supposed to be able to enforce law, not make it. Well, unless they’re in the Bush administration, but that’s a longer rant. Anyway, the actual law that gives the FCC the ability to be such a shit is codified as 18 U.S.C. 1464. Broadcasting obscene language, and 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(D). Refer to Liibulletin in footnote 1 for a good overview of the case. [<]
- Does that evoke images of my head being made of poopie? [<]
Related posts:
- Erasing Decades of Moral Progress with Proposition 8 Of all the
- Lies, Damn Lies, and Creationism – Redux Book Revie
- More U.S. Anti-Contraception Coercion in Africa, Plus a Look Back on Bush’s Anti-Choice Legacy The Bush a
- Virginia Ban on Political Clothing at Polling Places is OK While the
- Metro Religious Discrimination Case Could Create Double Standard Apparently
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
It’s so ironic that by making such a huge deal out of these words, they’re giving the words so much more power than they would have. They’re just words! The only thing that makes them bad at all is our society arbitrarily deciding they’re bad.
Gotta love those arbitrary enforcements of ‘morality’. It’s OK to say DUNG, MERDE or any other word that means ‘SHIT’. But oh no, we can’t actually use the word ‘SHIT’. That’s bad.
This read more like a blog entry, than an article. Anyway, this just reminds me of the MPAA and how every word but “fuck, cunt, twat” etc., can be said in a movie and not garner an “R” but if you say “fuck, cunt, twat” etc., more than once, automatic “R” or it gets bleeped (the movie “Accepted” is a good example of bleeping the f-word). I know the two are different, I mean the MPAA doesn’t fine people, they just rate the movie differently, even if the rating doesn’t reflect the movie. Anyway, the FCC has been doing this for years, “The FCC killed the radio star” — in reference to the battle that Howard Stern had with the FCC. Look where he had to go to to not get hassled. I miss his show. -Nam
I love Frank Zappa.
Also, language is what we make it. Like Laura said, if you want to take the power away from the words, then lose the emotional responses to said words. However, like Frank said, those words exist for a reason: they convey a specific meaning or attitude that cannot be better expressed through the usage of other words. So they do serve a purpose. If they don’t serve your purposes, then you don’t have to use them. But I hardly see the point in limiting their usage for others.
As for protecting the children…sure, some parents are going to screw that up. Honestly, though, there are worse things that parents can, and do, screw up on. We swear around our kids, and I’ve told them that they’re grown up words they can use when they become adults. In the meantime, it is inappropriate for them to use those words, and guess what? They don’t use them. It’s my job to instill those values in my children if I so choose, and no one else’s.
And personally, I get freaking pissed when I, as a consumer, buy music, say for ringtones or my ipod, and it comes pre-censored. I often don’t even get the option of having it uncensored. As an adult, I don’t need these decisions made for me. It’s fucking stupid.