The Federal Communications Commission cannot fine broadcasters for obscene content without prior notice of what defines obscenity, according to a recent Supreme Court ruling. The FCC originally fined ABC for brief nudity on “NYPD Blue” and for the use of vulgar language during two award shows broadcast by Fox in 2002 and 2003.

The court did not issue a broad ruling, which would challenge the FCC’s indecency rules, but the time has come to end the FCC’s control over indecent, obscene or profane content. With the accessibility of content on the Internet and on cable, the FCC’s rules are outdated and unnecessary. The rules should be repealed.

The power for the FCC to regulate indecency in over-the-air broadcasts came in 1978 after FCC v. Pacifica. A father and son overheard a radio broadcast of George Carlin’s “filthy words” while driving one day. The father complained to the FCC. Protecting children from hearing or seeing offensive content was cited as a principle reason the FCC should enforce indecency rules.

The court found the government had an interest in protecting children and also ordinary citizens from unwanted speech on public airwaves. The ruling allows the FCC to fine broadcasters who transmit indecent or profane content between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. — a time when children may be watching or listening.

In the case of cable and the Internet, though, this ruling does not apply because these are not publicly owned airwaves. These rules are unnecessary because of the shift in the way people access their media. Cable and satellite can be found in almost 90 percent of households, according to Nielsen data. Approximately 76 percent of children aged 3 to 17 have household Internet access, according to a 2009 Census Bureau report.

We get our entertainment in other places than the major TV networks now.

In the unregulated environments of the Internet and cable, there’s little question that there’s the potential to be exposed to content we might not like. We still use these media, and there’s no overwhelming call for the government to censor them.

When compared with other countries, the United States seems hopelessly backward. In a country where we look down upon others who don’t support free speech or expression, it seems odd that we’re still clinging to the government to shield our children and ourselves. Censorship is what Americans want, but we simultaneously criticize nations who censor media.

The president of the Parents Television Council, Tim Winter, said, “Broadcast decency rules have existed to protect children since the dawn of the broadcast medium. It is for their sake that there will still be decency rules, and the TV networks will be required to abide by them.” He, among other advocates for decency standards, applauded the ruling, which did not question the FCC’s ability to enforce standards.

Americans can handle being responsible for what they watch. If parents are concerned with what their children watch or hear, they need to take more control. Children are exposed to all sorts of content, which might be indecent. Broadcast television is only one of many media available to them. Parents must understand this reality.

In years to come, the FCC’s authority will continue to be questioned. Justice Ruth Ginsburg wrote in her opinion, “Time, technological advances, and the Commission’s untenable rulings in the cases now before the Court show why Pacifica bears reconsideration.”
In the future, America may join the rest of the modern world, which can handle swearing, among other supposedly offensive content, on TV.

Harmen Rockler is a senior newspaper journalism and political science major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at horockle@syr.edu.

Published on June 25, 2012 at 2:10 pm