As I see it, the FCC is doing the same service that radio authorities in
many countries do. They are enforcing a law that bans vulgar and offensive
swear words during times when children can listen. That ban should be
impartial. I would be very angry if the FCC said "We'll let that
artist/radio show get away with it because they are using the words to make
an important point." I do not think that free speech should excuse the use
of vulgar terms in front of children and the FCC also thinks that way when
it says "...the Commission has rejected an approach to indecency that would
hold that material is not per se indecent if the material has merit."
In other words they are saying that the fact that the song is making an
important point does not excuse the fact that it contains vulgar terms that
were broadcast at a time when people expect them not to be broadcast. The
ban is not regarding the message it is regarding the specific vocabulary
contained within. I don't see therefore why this is an attack on free
speech.
You can argue that, if it results in the song not being played, then the
result is the same and I would agree. But whose fault is that? The FCC's?
Their ban on swearing can result in peoples' free speech being 'stifled' if
their speech contains vulgar words, but is that the fault of the FCC and
does that make their intention that of banning free speech? I would think
not. Neither, if the FCC's rules about swearing silence someone while they
are making their point, do I believe that it is automatically their fault
that the persons speech has been silenced, especially if the vulgar terms
could have been left out. Upon receiving the complaint, the FCC HAD to act
to do it's duty and function. Why should it be criticised for that (and yes
one complaint is enough)? On the other hand Sarah Jones CHOSE to make her
point using vulgar terms and the radio station CHOSE to play the record when
children were listening. I believe that is were the fault lies.
The radio station knew the rules or it should have done. It could easily
have edited the track to remove the particular words that were vulgar.
Perhaps it's their fault they got fined. If other radio stations edit the
song or play it outside the watershed, it can STILL GET PLAYED.
Alternatively, Sarah Jones could have used other words that meant the same
thing but were not in themselves vulgar. After all, it's the message that
counts isn't it? In England, during the Victorian era, their was much
stricter censorship on vocabulary. This made it hard to deal with issues
regarding sex because many of the words that depicted it were banned.
Novelists and poets got around this by knowing the rules and describing
things in a way that avoided offensive vocabulary. They still got their
message across just as clear.
"Listeners of the song will note that Jones in no way endorses or promotes
any patently offensive sexual references." How about 'bl*w-j*b'? Where I
come from that is a swear word and is considered offensive. I know that if I
had very young children, and one of them asked me what 'bl*w-j*b' meant,
having just heard it on a morning radio show, I would be very angry that the
word had been aired at such a time that radio broadcasts were supposed to be
free of foul language. It is true that the word is mentioned by way of an
attack and does not endorse or promote the act but the word is still
uttered, which is where the FCC's objection lies.
It is alright to swear to kids if you are making a good point and exercising
your right to free speech- I don't think so.
I think it is great that people are prepared to defend the right to free
speech so strongly and act promptly when they see it under threat. However,
I feel people who have complained to the FCC are mistaken in this case. The
right to free speech is not "...on the line." The FCC was simply acting to
defend the rights of parents who wish their children to be free of foul
language, a right that is also very important and should be defended. If the
radio station is fined I feel that is their own fault even though their
intentions were good and so I will not be joining some fellow list members
in making a complaint to the FCC.
Carl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jun 18 2001 - 18:25:27 CEST