For years, cable television channels have served up shows
with copious amounts of sexual content, profanity, and over-the-top violence.
It was common knowledge that anyone seeking rawer forms of entertainment could
generally find what they wanted on cable stations, while the networks offered
tamer fare. HBO and Cinemax peddled smut; ABC, CBS, and the rest kept it clean.
More recently, the line which has separated cable fare from
network offerings has become blurred as a result of instances such as Janet
Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" and the usage of four-letter words by
These "fleeting expletives" caused the Federal Communications Commission to re-evaluate existing policy; it is for this reason that the FCC can now fine the broadcasting companies which allow such cursing on-air.
Unhappy with the FCC's change in policy, the broadcasting companies of Fox, ABC, NBC, and CBS have taken the matter to federal court in order to have the indecency ruling overturned.
After an appeals court ruling which found in favor of the broadcasters and characterized that the FCC's policy position was "probably unconstitutional," the FCC has appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's decision.
The argument of the broadcasting companies is that the FCC is essentially suppressing free speech when it is not necessary to do so, pointing to television settings and other controls currently at the disposal of parents who wish to exercise discretion over their children's television viewing.
Representing the FCC, US Solicitor General Paul Clement replied that court decisions had placed "the commission in an untenable position." Though the FCC is considered responsible for the decency (or lack thereof) of programming, it is being denied "effective tools to address the problem."[i]
There are two rules of thumb which are worth keeping in mind in cases such as this.
First, when the legal question deals with the potential effect existing policies may have on children, we strongly believe that it is better to err on the side of safety; children must be adequately protected--in this case, from inappropriate content. Adults are free to watch whatever they like, and are fully cognizant of what may flash across their screen when flipping channels. Children are not.
Second, the downsides to further regulation must be weighed dispassionately, without hyperbole or exaggeration. In the worst case scenario, if this regulation is indeed an infringement upon free speech, then what? It does not hinder adults from availing themselves of indecent content--there are cable stations, video stores, and the internet. Furthermore, in no way can this be construed as the beginning of a slippery slope, whereby government regulation has a "chilling effect" on free speech in general.
Fortunately, the FCC seems to have the proper perspective in matters such as these. Kevin Martin, the chairman of the FCC summed up his duty thus: "Protecting our children is our greatest responsibility."
