Crackdown on Indecency in Broadcasting by the FCC - Case Study Example

The Crackdown on Indecency in Broadcasting by the FCC Introduction The beginning of the year 2004 saw a rise in the number of complaints that were forwarded and filed at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against indecency in broadcasting. One of the most common subplots in the area of indecency is the likelihood that the Commission carried on some activities and adjusted the reporting methodology in order to support the enforcement of the policy. A few notable developments have occurred in the US media industry over the last decade. The North Americans have for a long time been said to enjoy doing and watching sex videos. It even reached a point where some people went to an extent of preaching about the value and enjoyment of engaging in sex activities (Boister, 2005). History has indicated that pornography is one of the major forces behind the development of the new technologies. An example is that of a thesis done by Martin Luther that received a speedy distribution due to the development of some new printing press whose major beneficiaries were the authors of literature related to pornography. The major reason for the changes in the recent legal treatment of indecency seems to be more political than moral. The politicians in the US have discovered that even though sex sells commercially, an anti- indecency policy tends to sell better politically thereby coming up with the changes required. In media regulations context, the new course has taken the form of the commission’s abrupt changes in the indecency enforcement rule. The history in the 20th century tries to reflect the FCC with an aim of taking a tolerant view of broadcasting soft- core pornography that halted in early 2004. At the national view, this can be dismissed as a partisan posturing outline. Moreover, in a narrow view concerns on the specialized regulatory agency, and the tension that exists between crafting decisions are important in the creation of proper public relations. The relations are capable of avoiding obviously unworthy results. The FCC has been forced into some awkward situations such as avoiding some traditional safeguard procedures and to do changes to the indecency policy from one month to the other. History of Indecency Regulation The history of indecency can be traced far back and discussed as follows. A. Early Indecency Policy In the early days, indecency was not an issue in the US broadcasting industry. Although, some several stations ended up losing their stations licenses for broadcasting improper content to the public. The major issues in these cases were however not the use of disfavored language, but resulted from some sort of defamatory statements that were made in the programs (Boister, 2005). Apart from the few noted and isolated incidences, all the broadcasters were relatively reserved and the FCC became powerful than the Federal Radio Commission in the year 1934. During this time, there was no provision in the communications act that prohibited indecent broadcasting (Boister, 2005). As a substitute, the courts and the commission depended on the provisions of the criminal code that makes it a crime to transmit and broadcast indecent materials by any means. Although neither the statute had any contribution to give the Commission, any authority to offer sanctions on any neither indecent broadcasting case nor FCC did attempt to ask for any jurisdiction over the matter in the same Act. Due to the situation of the statutory, the Commission has never attempted to get any jurisdictions towards cable televisions. The negligence is based on the theory that the transmissions are made via wires rather than by radio waves (Cossman & Rogerson, 2007). The result of this was the availability of vast amounts of pornographic materials by broadcasters who use this type of transmission. FCCs approach to the broadcasting of indecency materials began back in the year 1978. Following the first ever-broadcasting indecency case in the Supreme Court presented by the Commission and the ruling favored the commission (Cossman & Rogerson, 2007). It has been evident that the FCC has for a long time been following a pattern of creating some threatening noises with very little actions against media indecency. The act has been seen as a means of maximizing political visibility while at the same time minimizing the potential free speech problems. The misuse of the vocabulary “fuck" has been a major issue with the commission for a long period. The utterance of the word as seen in the FCCs post- 2004-indecency enforcement policy became talismanic in the Golden Globes case. The reason for such power in this one word has not been clear in any way (Freedman, 2008). Since then, the decision of the commission in the Pacifica was seen to be problematic. It stated that the accuser was in several cases caught driving through the streets of New York City with his young son during the referred broadcasting monolog. The father (driver) of the 15 years old son was a member of a Media morality board that was by that time the major anti- indecency firm in the United States. At this time, it was hard to traverse the streets of the city without hearing a series of cursing words in a number of different languages (Freedman, 2008). Looking at the facts brought some elements of doubts on the credibility of the complaint filed. However, the Supreme Court took one of the ideas that received lots of support based on a 7-2 count. The court first held the fact that the act of broadcasting was uniquely persistent and had a reasoning that the audience targeted when broadcasting is ever tuning in and out (Godfrey, 2006). The court did not however consider the amount of time that it took to turn a radio on or off and again, the time needed to tune into different channels giving itself a means of self-defense. In 1978 though, the court did not have enough powers to account for the rapid technological changes that were taking place and it became possible for parents to exclude offensive programming controlled systems. Secondly, the court placed more focus on the assumption that the broadcasting done was exclusively available for children with even the very young who did not have the ability to read being included. The point by the Supreme Court though seemed to be identical with its first case concerning media indecency (Hilliard & Keith, 2010). At the same instance, the court failed to consider a number of factors like the ability of the children to turn off their media receiving gadgets. The ability of turning off the channels and the ability of the parents to supervise the exposure of their children to the media in the near future (Lipschultz, 2008). The judges then took a very different view of the same issue. They concluded that, the law was indirectly limiting the ability of the adults to listen or view the programs aired by most of the radio and television studios. The limitation was based on the level of young children by minimizing the contents aired to those that are suitable for children. The judges also noted that the words that the Commission considered indecent are not considered offensive in the black vernacular hence not affecting most of the population (Lipschultz, 2008). The possible consequences from the Pacifica seemed to raise an alarm to the commission too. Some few months later, the Commission issued an opinion that stated the continued and repetitive use of some seven dirty words that were only to be used after 1000Hrs and the Congress confirmed their proposal. The above actions by the Commission and the Congress were proposed and done under a new chairperson. B. Broadcast Indecency from Pacifica to 2004 In decades that followed the Pacifica in 2004, the Commission, the government Congress, and the state courts disputed over the details of the policy related to indecency. Although, none of these feuds reached the power of the post-2004 entanglement. Responsive to the probable chilling outcome of the insisted decree, in the 1980s to 1990s the FCC treaded calmly in the area. To some extent, the Commission was pleased with the operations of the then major broadcasting networks. The networks had set the standards and practices departments in their operations leading to a decrease in the number of indecent programs aired. After some time though, some of the radio broadcasters became more assertive in their ways of programming (Lipschultz, 1997). The audience then was able to access some sexually explicit materials at that time. There developed a growing concern that mass media was contributing to the decline in the morality of the society and the general behavior of women. However, the number of engagements made towards this call was relatively very small. The call is said to have served as the beginning of the change in the earlier laissez-faire method to broadcasting indecency (Lipschultz, 2008). The mid-1980s though saw the commission surprising some of the observers when it issued letters warning some three radio stations after they broadcasted materials that were termed as shocking. FCC held that the materials were highly offensive to the public but at the same time, it failed to provide some tests that would prove that the materials were offensive (Lipschultz, 1997). On a review done by the judiciary on actions for children’s television cases, the Colombian district court of appeal upheld to the commissions approach. The court came to an agreement that the commissions concept and idea of indecency was inherently unclear. In the month of October 1988, the Congress tried to weigh a dispute filed by a passing broadly towards a budget bill that required the commission to rule out indecency for 24 hours. The Congress did this without involving the public and without any reactions in the form of comments from the public. The commission then modified their ban to that of from six in the morning to 10 in the evening. The ban left about 8 hours of the night to be used as a safe harbor and it was ultimately upheld in ACT III (Lipschultz, 2008). The administrative creation and the approval of the safe harbor by the Congress resulted in the lessening of the commissions efforts in indecency program. The issue of indecency therefore became less controversial for a given number of years. Despite all these, the commission still received some complaints and it issued warning letters or obtained some fines from the latter and this went on up to 2004 (Pritchard, 2000). 2004: Background to FCC Enforcement As clearly stated in the introduction, there are a given number of reasons why an agency concerned with regulating indecency like FCC face hardships in implementing the policies put forward. In the case of indecency, public attitude does not in any way seem to be the driving force behind the efforts made by the agency. Most people were comfortable to watch and allow others to watch sexually explicit materials. Despite all these, political and other relevant institutions seem to be at work against this vice (Pritchard, 2000). The 1990s were characterized by the growth of political presence and religious right in the fight against indecency. During the last decade, several groups and sects have become politically active although the exact numbers of the followers are not well known and may not have in the real sense increased (Zelezny, 2010). Some political analysts have held that the last two US elections have had their influences on organizations outside the political arena though no evidence has been provided to ascertain to this. The above results may have been from the change in the activities carried rather than an increase in the number of supporters. Secondly, there has been a registered increase in the number and resources that are of interest to the public with agendas in anti-indecency campaigns. One of the popular groups is that of Parents Television Council. It has been noted that the council might be responsible for more than 99.8 % of total complaints filed against indecency with the commission. The council is made up of around one million non-paying members. All these members have agreed to be fed with materials that are seen to be indecent. They also have a say on what should be done to the media distributing the materials (Zelezny, 2010). Thirdly, FCC has indirectly helped the anti-indecency lobby and finally, indecency has been seen as a politically convenient issue at the beginning of the new millennium. However, this does not mean that at any instance, those who are not affected could view sexually oriented programs as the main cause of the woes experienced in the country (Pritchard, 2000). Conclusion To conclude, FCC post- 2004 indecency enforcement scheme looks like an ideology that inspired a major heave to the repression of the kind of speeches done over the media. The Commission has widened the indecency definition, has changed the procedures and at the same time changed the rules of the game. The Commission has also fastened the process of processing the complaints filed concerning indecency. These changes in the Commission are clearly seen as some form of political developments and the origin is usually not clearly known. During the time when family issues were highly pronounced in the US, the white house might have ordered the commission to crack down the issues of indecency. The other possibility is that of the formation of the well-funded organizations on anti-indecency might have led to the generation of the many complaints filed. Another possible reason for the filing of the many anti-indecency cases may be caused by the availability of the Internet to each person in the society. The most important task should be done in the evaluation of the effects and the long-term costs of the newly made implementation policies. On the level of operations, most broadcasters have been sent to a confusion state concerning the compliance of the broadcasters with the new enforcement policies. Most of these policies have resulted to choose and avoid any material that may be seen as potentially improper. In addition, the price of full compliance may sometimes be relatively high. The compliance can be in terms of the implementation of new technology that is capable of delaying the airing of live broadcasts to allow time for scrutinizing and deleting any offensive material present. There are even cases of a long history in the US broadcasting with ignorance of the FCCs threats being evident to an extent of the agency having particularly to implement the tough actions it enforces to the broadcasters. The prime issue for consideration is that of the Commission playing fast and loose with the traditional indecency concepts to the level that no one has a clear idea as to what speech is considered indecent. Finally, in the past thirty years of the US policy on indecency, the trend has been seen as being cyclical in nature. It is characterized by two major cycles of concise enforcement and then a hands-off loom until most recently. There exists a good reason for the agency to return to a leniency mode. References Boister, N. (2005). International Criminal Law Cases and Materials. BY Edward M Wise, Ellen S Podgor and Roger S Clark (2nd edn, Lexis Nexis Newark, San Francisco and Charlottesville, 2004) 830pp plus index and references ISBN 0-82056-223-8 International Criminal Law Cases and Materials: Teachers Manual (2nd edn Lexis Nexis Newark San Francisco and Charlottesville 2004) 117pp. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 54(04). Cossman, B., & Rogerson, C. (2007). Family law. [Toronto]: Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. Freedman, D. (2008). The politics of media policy. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Godfrey, D. (2006). Methods of historical analysis in electronic media. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hilliard, R., & Keith, M. (2010). The broadcast century and beyond. Burlington, MA: Focal Press. Lipschultz, J. (1997). Broadcast indecency. Boston: Focal Press. Lipschultz, J. (2008). Broadcast and internet indecency. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Pritchard, D. (2000). Holding the media accountable. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Zelezny, J. (2010). Communications law. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth. Read More