The decision by a federal appeals court to shoot down the Federal Communications Commission’s indecency policy leaves the agency in limbo when it comes to regulating bad language and bare body parts on broadcast television.
The FCC, which has seen several court decisions that challenge its regulatory authority in various areas, now has to decide whether to fight the decision or change its rules.
With the number of virtually unregulated media choices available to consumers beyond broadcast television, it seems silly to have a strenuous regulatory scheme for just one sector.
We think the FCC would better serve the public by promoting the kinds of parental controls available to selectively block programming from individuals’ homes rather than to try to write up a new set of rules that, by their nature, would likely dance on the edge of infringing on free speech rights.
Mind you, we’re not advocating for over-the-air, free programming riddled with swear words and naked bodies. And we don’t think that would happen if the FCC were to take a step back from being the obscenity police.
We believe viewers will vote with their remote controls — a message that revenue-hungry networks will get loud and clear.
If consumers are disgusted by the language or themes on a particular television show or network, that sentiment will show up in ratings pretty quickly. Television executives ignore such indicators at their own peril.
As for those who worry that their children may watch inappropriate programming, there already are ways to block certain channels, gaining access only via a personal identification number. Individual programs can be blocked as well.
Parents can even hide racy, adult- themed programming descriptions that can be seen in electronic program guides.
An approach focusing on individual control makes far more sense, we think, than trying to fashion some one-size-fits all sensibility when it comes to objectionable words and images.
What is distasteful to one person may be sort of funny to another. Ever watched “Family Guy”?
We think the government has better things to do than spending taxpayer money enforcing some sort of moral code. Let that be part of the bygone Bush era.
The appeals court decision released this week emanates from a 2004 policy change by the FCC. The agency decided to begin using a stricter but somewhat vague standard of allowable language.
The court said the FCC’s policy created a “chilling effect” because it created a climate of uncertainty for broadcasters, who were left not knowing exactly what the FCC would consider offensive.
We would rather the FCC left such judgments up to individuals, who are fully capable of making those calls for themselves.
