Post

Censorship

The last time I voiced my opinion about censorship it brought an onslaught of letters, emails and a phone call or two, reprimanding me for speaking out in favor of the First Amendment. You’d think I would have learned my lesson the first time. Let me make it clear, for those of you already standing in judgment of me, that I do not watch or listen to obscene programming. I find it offensive and choose to change the channel.

President Bush signed a bill into law last week that brings to completion a two-year effort to keep radio and television programming within “the bounds of decency.” Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the 2004 Super Bowl got the ball rolling on this and it has yet to slow down. If Ms. Jackson decided to flash the audience today, she’d be paying through her nose. This new law has some financial teeth to it. For indecent talk or show of skin, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can fine a broadcaster up to $325,000 per incident.

Janet Jackson’s offense was pretty straightforward. Was it indecent? Chances are, you’ll say it was indecent. There’s not a lot of gray area on that one. But is it indecent to breastfeed a baby in a public area? Some will say yes, some will say no. Of course you are not on TV in that case, but you are in a public place. What constitutes indecency?

What I do not like about this new law or many other laws is they leave too much to interpretation. This new law does not define indecency. I like laws that leave little wiggle room or gray area. “Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor and Thou shalt not steal,” come to mind.

Here in my shop, the crusty old radio newsman with outrageous political, social, and cultural opinions has been urged to exercise prudence even when “holding court” in this newsroom. And when he does cross into the area that is offensive to some, is it his racial and obscene language, which is unacceptable or his outrageous political positions, which are acceptable? It is my responsibility as manager to determine these things and reprimand him accordingly. (All the while, wishing I knew one-sixteenth of what he knows after all of those years of covering agricultural news.)

Now that I’ve had “sensitivity training,” I am a watchdog in my newsroom. There is no swearing allowed in the Brownfield newsroom. We broadcast 30-some programs per day from this newsroom so there is a good chance there will be a “hot” microphone that could pick up that one slip of the tongue. No offensive language is allowed, although what is offensive to one may not be offensive to another, so it’s probably best that we all just keep our mouths shut and do our jobs. Ok, it’s not really that bad. Can’t we all just be responsible grown-ups?

I think that any broadcaster worth his or her salt should be able to paint a picture without using obscene language. How difficult would it be to use some good old fashioned common sense for a change? But if you don’t like what you hear when you are listening to the radio or watching the television, here’s an idea: CHANGE THE CHANNEL. Chances are you’ve got a remote, so you will not even have to get up out of your recliner.

I stand firmly in support of the First Amendment and I ask you as American citizens why we have to have a law to make sure indecent programs do not air. The FCC says indecent material is that which contains sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

So what the heck is the definition of obscenity?