Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Regulations on media outlets

I ran across this article about FOX News and the legal case it is currently involved with. It caught my attention because it involves a controversy that has been going on for a while.

(You can read more about the case here.)

Basically, the issue of profanity in the media has gone to the Supreme Court. The issue was discussed by justices, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), and an attorney for FOX. They debated the use of expletives on television, citing examples of Cher, Nicole Richie, and Bono uttering curse words live.

The justices cracked jokes and employed euphemisms to refer to the words involved throughout the case.

The current policy is that the FCC can punish a network for repeated expletives. However, they are currently trying to determine if this can apply to "one-time," single slip-ups.

The article explains the court hearing's background:

"The Federal Communications Commission reversed long-standing policy targeting only repeated expletives and said any one-time use of vulgarities associated with sexual or excretory functions could be sanctioned.

The FCC then declared indecent a 2002 outburst by Cher on a Fox awards show and several other incidents. Fox Television Stations sued, saying the new limit on "fleeting expletives" was arbitrary and violated the First Amendment. "

As I read this article, several opposing thoughts came to mind. On one hand, there are certain "widely accepted" standards which are part of society to protect children. Most public news channels are considered "safe," and families can leave the news on and expect professionalism and decency. I think it should stay that way.

On the other hand, the logistics seem a little strange. How can the FCC punish something that is said live? Yes, more safegaurds should be put in place. Networks should brief their guest stars on what is acceptable and what is not.

Basically, if it's pre-recorded, there should be definite boundaries on what can and can't be said on public or widely-accessed television. In general, most sketchier shows are played after 10pm to avoid children viewing them. This practice is good, and should be continued. However, when it comes to live television, I think it will be a pointless effort to actually enforce legislation that blames a network for a "one-time" curse word slip.

What do you all think? We all support the fact that everyone has a First Amendment right to say whatever they want. But should the FCC play the "watchdog" role in regulating offensive content?

5 comments:

Mrs.prettyweather said...

Leah I think that you have a very good point. vI think that for the nmost part the media is pretty much safe. They should in-turn do something about those reports that may have been previous recorded that invlve explicit language on the other hand there isn't much the legislative board can do about something that is networked live.

Shannon said...

This is just silly!

The instances where the speech was used are live broadcasts, so how can FOX be held accountable?? It is not their fault that they tried to provide viewers with entertainment and then celebrities decided to not mind their manners and use curse words on purpose. If the FCC is going to punish FOX why don't they punish Bono, Cher and Nicole Ritchie? They are the ones who knew they were going to use expletives on TV, not FOX.

I would like to see the FCC punish a celebrity for freedom of speech instead of punishing innocent networks.

cannse3 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cannse3 said...

You have a good point! I actually have always felt that they should be able to show more on television and the radio, because theres so many channels that if you find it innapropriate you can just turn the channel. I think freedom of speech is very important and I think that America may monitor things a little too closely. Fox shouldnt be punished, and its ridiculous to think that they should be held accountable!

Anonymous said...

The good old debate about the First Amendment. I think it is ridicules for the government to try and silence words. Why should some one be charged for speaking a word? People would not be so offended if the words were not counted as obscenities.

The issue of vulgarities has unfortunately been settled, so I guess the issue falls on the networks and people saying the words. You cannot blame the networks for what is said by people, but you can blame the networks for airing what is said. Pretty sticky situation.

P.S. I love HBO(private networks are amazing)