The more I hear about “crackdowns” on media indecency, the more I believe we are headed to a very scary place as Americans. What pushed me over the edge on a personal level in this issue was last Fall’s Saving Private Ryan debacle wherein a stack of ABC affiliates refused to run the film “because of fears that the FCC might rule certain swear words in the film to be indecent,” as the AP’s Frazier Moore reports. While no complaints turned into fines, the scare tactics are already there.
When looking further into the issue last November, I was informed, not surprisingly, that the FCC would never make a statement in advance of a program to be aired, as it would be seen as de facto censorship - my words, not theirs. But isn’t that what’s already happening? It’s clear that broadcasters are in the funny position of having their cake, eating it (sometimes) too, but wanting to have a little bit of idea on whether the cake is going to make them gain weight or not, but not wanting to ask a “does this make me look fat?” question?
I don’t mean to make light of this serious issue, but it’s kind of a funny thing. ABC stations were in a position where choosing not to run the movie was safe, because they didn’t know if they would be fined or not. They didn’t know if they would be fined or not because the latest “rules” on indecent content are a bit vague, more or less because some outlets have been hit with fines when others have not, even if the content discussed was in the same context or level of detail. If a governing body is put in a position where they can, effectively, willy-nilly lay down the law whenever they choose to, sitting behind the guise of “we rely on most recent case law,” then what does the reasonable man standard say in this situation? If we live in a world where the complaints of a few may be able to form the doctrine over the many, then what about if the many were to file counter-complaints about the original complaints, claiming that in a “reasonable” sense, they were not offended in the first place, henceforth deeming the content unobjectionable?
Yes, it’s confusing, and it’s meant to be. Why? Because it explains the situation that each and every television and radio broadcaster operates in today. We’re living in a time where whomever screams loudest has been having the biggest effect on policy. Do “the people” really want to live in a country where what they can and cannot listen to over paid services such as cable and satellite television or radio should be censored? Is that serving the public good, or the beliefs of some (who may be many, this is by no means meant to shuffle off their importance) over the rest, under the guise of “what is right?”
The coddling and handholding has gotten far beyond criticism of your kids not being able to play dodgeball in gym class. Today’s society is relying more and more on government of some sort to dictate can and should, rather than doing what works best for them.
I, for one, do not welcome these wannabe masters of my media and communication world.
