![]() The expansion of FCC decency guidelines and the chilling effects of their inconsistent application – particularly on non-profit broadcasters who cannot afford to dispute, let alone pay, a fine – are good reasons to question whether the censorship regime established by the “fleeting expletive” rule, and by Pacifica in general, is acceptable today. ![]() Message to broadcasters: when unsure, censor yourselves (and they do). But the same word was deemed unacceptable in Martin Scorsese’s documentary, The Blues. The FCC let ABC off the hook for a broadcast of Saving Private Ryan that included the word “fuck,” deciding that it was “integral to the film’s objective” of portraying soldiers’ experiences. Under new rules, even “fleeting expletives” are fair game for penalties – well, sometimes. However, all but three of the complaints were identical. Over 99% of the complaints in 20 were generated by the PTC, which has been described as “an automated complaint factory.”įor example, the FCC says it received 159 letters about a 2003 episode of Married By America, for which it fined Fox a whopping $1.2 million. The surge in numbers also corresponds with the Parents Television Council’s campaign to flood the agency with mass emails and form letters. ![]() The FCC bases its approach on the assumption that “Americans have become more concerned” with indecent material on television because complaints rose “from fewer than 50 in 2000 to approximately 1.4 million in 2004.”īut this statistic is both irrelevant and misleading: irrelevant because popular opinion does not trump the right to free speech, and misleading because FCC policy drastically inflates the tally of complaints by counting one letter sent to five agency staff as five separate complaints. As if that weren’t sufficient, last summer Congress increased the maximum fine ten-fold. The incident cost CBS $550,000 (20 affiliate stations each paid the maximum $27,500 fine). ![]() Pacifica (1978), the Supreme Court created an exemption to First Amendment law when it upheld the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to regulate “indecent” broadcast material, defined as “language that describes, in terms patently offensive … sexual or excretory activities and organs.” However, the Court cautioned the FCC to “exercise authority with the utmost restraint, lest we inhibit constitutional rights.”īut the agency abandoned restraint after a “wardrobe malfunction” exposed Super Bowl audiences to a half-second glimpse of Janet Jackson’s breast.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |