Last month, President Bush decreed that radio stations may be fined up to $325,000 for airing indecent material. S. 193, sponsored by a Republican Senator, unanimously passed the senate this May; leading me to wonder, where are the U.S. Senators representing my beliefs on media and obscenity?
Termed the “Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005,” this bill came as a result of the Janet Jackson nipple exposure at the 2004 Superbowl half-time show. To some Senators, televised nudity constitutes obscenity; I cannot fathom the fact that it is deemed inappropriate for children to see a breast, but perfectly appropriate for them to be exposed to CortiSlim advertisements that scream from the television set, “you are plagued by unsightly belly fat.”
The way in which the U.S. government defines morality is almost as backwards as the way in which they intend to limit so-called indecency in the media. S. 193 is unfair to media stations, because the bill does not account for accidental instances of obscenity; for instance, if a D.J. on a radio station inadvertently utters “fuck.” Although most stations do have timing devices designed to bleep out accidental on-air sneezes or curse words, there is always the possibility that a D.J. won’t hit the button in time, and a profane word will be heard. At which point, the station could be forced to pay the FCC a sum of money equivalent to the price of a large house.
Obviously, the Janet Jackson situation falls under the category of accidents (or “malfunctions”) as well. Does the FCC believe that, if a $325,000 fine for obscenity were in place, managers from CBS would have personally approached Ms. Jackson prior to the half-time show and applied adhesive to her costume? Jackson’s wardrobe snafu was a spur of the moment accident, and obscenity fines do not adhere shirts to breasts.
Linguistic conservatives would most likely argue that obscenity fines do indeed prevent accidental obscene moments, because the fines scare media stations into shying away from questionable content. If FCC fines had been higher during the 2004 Superbowl, perhaps CBS would not have invited Jackson and Timberlake to perform in the first place.
But wait. Is it right that media outlets should be frightened away from broadcasting material that is only potentially offensive? If the point of the FCC fine is not to prevent obscenity, but to scare stations away from questionable content that could lead to accidental situations of profanity, then the government has taken media regulation too far.
Besides the fact that the bill is an overbearing burden to media stations, S. 193 is also pointless. Swear words are not as poignant now as they once were; young people are desensitized to profane language, which takes power away from the words. Only when enforcers such as the FCC attempt to limit the use of swear words does profanity regain its ability to harm or shock.
Furthermore, replacing obscenities with bleeps is futile; viewers, even young ones, still hear the word “fuck.” 7-year-old children are perfectly cognizant that
“frogging ash pole” is not an actual phrase, but just a cover up for a set of far more descriptive words; television and radio stations verge on sounding foolish when beeps or code words replace what everyone knows to be swear words.
The FCC also falls back on euphemisms when defining profanity, and there is something so humorous about a government document that can’t even have the word “fuck” in it, but must instead, over and over, refer to “the F-word.” How juvenile does that sound?
In terms of sexual obscenity, it is not healthy for America’s children to learn that a breast constitutes indecency. A breast is not obscene, and I guarantee that children watching the
Superbowl were not shocked to learn that like most of us, Janet Jackson has nipples. I feel as though we should send the United States to therapy so that this nation might finally recover from its Puritan past.
The Federal Communications Commission should not peddle morality; for that matter, neither should the government. $325,000 is an outrageous fine, and a pointless one at that. Instead of teaching children that words like fuck have power, and bare body parts are obscene, I would rather children learn that words are only as powerful as you make them, that the bare body of a woman is not always a sexual image, and that sexual images are not always obscene.
[email protected]