ACLU and Free Speech Groups after the FCC
Posted on December 1, 2006
Cross Posted from Revealing the ACLU: The very thought that free speech covers indecency is foolish. That the ACLU and certain free speech groups, not to mention some major networks, continue to postulate that very idea is lunacy. There have to be standards of decency in any society, and the ACLU’s activities to first remove religion’s interpretations of decency is now being followed by a move to remove the very concept of decency.
This from an ACLU press release:
New standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission to censor “indecency†on the airwaves are overly vague and unconstitutional, a coalition of 20 free speech organizations, community broadcasters, filmmakers, performers and writers argued in a legal brief filed today.
In the friend-of-the-court brief, the groups urged the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn an FCC ruling issued earlier this year that applied new standards for censoring indecency and profanity to complaints received between 2002 and 2005. The groups urged the court to throw out the FCC’s censorship scheme altogether, arguing that “the FCC’s efforts to regulate in this area have proven to be constitutionally unworkable.â€Â
Note the call to throw out the FCC censorship altogether? This is a move to open the airwaves to whatever smut broadcasters and producers think will sell the best. Can you imagine what TV would be like with no limits or controls of what can and cannot be displayed? Sex sells, never forget it, and broadcasting would constantly be drawn to the more and more extreme.
“The FCC’s new and ever-shifting rules censoring ‘profanity’ and ‘fleeting expletives’ on the airwaves have no place in our free, diverse and pluralistic culture,†said Marjorie Heins, Coordinator of the Free Expression Policy Project at the Brennan Center for Justice, who prepared today’s brief. “The FCC’s attempted distinctions among various common words are capricious and irrational. The whole indecency and profanity regime should be struck down.â€Â
There are rules for proper communication, and broadcasters have consistently shown themselves drawn to push that envelope. The removal of an artificial barrier, like the FCC, would have an overall effect of lowering the quality of television.
Broadcast indecency is the worst kind, as it comes into our homes uninvited and parades before our children. Recent history has proven that we cannot trust broadcasters to be self-regulating. They have purposefully crossed the line far too many times, and without the FCC or similar organizations waiting to smack them when they cross the line, there is little hope for any last vestige of quality television.
» Filed Under Uncategorized
Trackback URL
Comments
4 Responses to “ACLU and Free Speech Groups after the FCC”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Sex sells because it is artificially suppressed in this country. Yes, content producers are constantly pushing the envelope, but that’s because there is an envelope.
Left to their own devices, some content producers would certainly get far racier. There can be no doubt that full frontal nudity (and probably even penetration) would become prevalent on some stations.
But it shows a severe lack of appreciation of market forces to suggest that this would happen across the board. There is a HUGE market for relatively clean tv and radio. It would only become more pronounced as the markets delineate.
The FCC’s authority is based on legacy technology. There didn’t use to be a practical way of blocking content, so it made sense to keep everyone at the lowest common denominator. That’s simply not the case anymore. Ever tv produced in the last decade has a v-chip. Every show gets some sort of rating.
You don’t want your kids watching adult content? Me neither. Use the technology at your fingertips to prevent it. Saying that we should restrict everyone’s choices because a subset doesn’t want certain choices is tantamount to attacking a mosquito with a sledgehammer.
The postulation that the removal of a limit will aid in the controlling of any undesirable action is flawed. It just doesn’t work. Removing the regulation from television broadcasting would not cause the broadcasters to regulate themselves, and would only increase the amount of obscene content on television.
And yet the ACLU is fighting against this technology as well, such as the stance the ACLU has regularly taken against the v-chip.
How the ACLU can simultaneously look to remove the FCCs authority in this and criticize parents for using technology like the v-chip is beyond me.
The undercurrent here is much more disturbing than this simple case. The ACLU is not pushing for Free Speech, it is pushing for unlimited speech, without any consideration for the effect on our children and our families. The same push they are making in cases involving pornography or any other form of obscene communication.
Its just wrong.
I never suggested it would. The action you find “undesirable” is constitutionally protected free speech. The current controls are only permitted because there previously wasn’t a practical way to separate the adult content from the general content. It is the position of these groups that there are now practical ways to ensure that separation, so the controls are no longer necessary.
They oppose it for two reasons:
– It was designed and mandated by the government. There’s no reason to think the market couldn’t develop a similar (and possibly more effective) system to accomplish the same end.
– It makes it easy for parents to “delegate parenting.” They would rather that parents be the obvious source of limits, rather than saying “sorry son, the tv said it wasn’t an appropriate show.”
I agree wholeheartedly with the first point and partially on the second point. Personally, I would use technology to block the material that I absolutely didn’t want my children to stumble upon, but I would enforce the mildly objectionable stuff on my own.
But their opposition to the v-chip doesn’t justify the FCC’s controls. There is nothing wrong with taking a position of “We oppose your mandated technology, but if it’s here to stay, let’s at least use it to reduce the other controls on free speech.”
Even if this assessment is true, it is no justification for opposing all of their positions. There is a long history of making content available to adults while restricting kids’ access to it.
“Sex sells because it is artificially suppressed in this country.†Jeff M.
I can falsify that argument since the pornography industry has expanded after being legalized by an activist supreme court. On the other hand I heard no evidence to back up your hypothesis.
“There is a HUGE market for relatively clean tv and radio.†Jeff M.
I have certainly not seen it.
“You don’t want your kids watching adult content? Me neither. Use the technology at your fingertips to prevent it.†Jeff M.
You can watch your own kids but what about the other guy’s kids. I am not even sure it is good for adults to watch.
Here is a article that covers the effects http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/11/28/teen.tweens.ap/
“The action you find “undesirable†is constitutionally protected free speech.†Jeff M.
Not according to the U.S. Constitution. If the speech is harmful to the general welfare then it is not protected. Roe v. Wade even makes that point.