Well Carl,
While this is a very lengthy and well-written rebutal to make the case of
"protect the children" and the FCC was just "doing it's job", you raise some
other significant issues.
First, on the issue of protecting the children....I am not a child, I don't
plan to have children. There are many adults that share this world w/
children. This is an old arguement and one's stance on it would most likely
depend on specific moral/personal values. We all know how varing "specific
moral/personal" values can be. One person's offensive content is another
person's radical political treasure...I always say...
But I must return to the arguement that, within reason, parents must be
responsible for protecting their children. Listen w/ your children, spend
time w/ them, explain that which warrents explination....and last turn off
that which you find to be beyond the bounds of proper content. I think alot
of American society's problem w/ children relies on this idea of protection.
Kids live in the 21st century, problems, injustices, offensive messages,
DO exist...and children must be prepared to deal w/ such instances so that
when they are challenged they can handel themselves in these situations.
It's dangerous territory to ascribe to the belief that government fractions
are "just doing their jobs" and we shouldn't complain b/c that "rule" has a
purpose. I can't help but think back to that poem "The Unkonwn Citizen".
It's about govenment deciding what groups/messages were and were not
acceptable. One man stands by and watches b/c, so far, these decisions do
not affect him. Until, one day when the gov't comes for him and there is no
one left to defend his beliefs. Sad, but poinient.
The fact is that Americans have the right to complain. A few may complain
that this song is offensive...then a rather large number may complain that
banning this song is an infringement of their rights. If every thing worked
how it *should*, then the larger complaining group would prevail, thereby
perpetuating that American-as-apple pie thing called "majority rule."
American society is built partially on complaint. A society w/o complaint
is totalitian...and I think we'd all agree not good.
So, here's to complaining! It's your opinion, VOICE IT!
my 2 cents,
j~
>From: "Barimore, Carl J" <cbarim@essex.ac.uk>
>To: acid-jazz@ucsd.edu
>Subject: RE: FCC BANS DJ VADIM "Revolution"
>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:58:11 +0100
>
>
>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
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jun 18 2001 - 19:33:34 CEST