You’re a parent flipping between two television programs, the Golden Globes and Saving Private Ryan, with your twelve-year-old sitting beside you. Similar to many American families, you have cable, and thus are not shocked when you hear profanities coming from Saving Private Ryan. However, when an accepting artist of a golden globe uses an isolated profanity you are taken aback. The next day you read in the news that the government is now making moves toward changing its policies to start fining broadcasters for now isolated and fleeting instances of vulgar usage of language at live events. The FCC actually did change regulations in 2003 after Bono, the lead singer of U2, lightly used an isolated profanity during his Golden Globe acceptance speech. Thirty years ago, when the FCC put the ban on the seven “dirty” words being on public broadcasting stations prior to 10 p.m., a lot was different back then- times have changed. Not nearly as common among households as today, cable allows for a higher likelihood of television viewers to hear explicit language. If cable faces such loose regulations by the government while reaching multitudes of viewers, the restrictions on public broadcasting should not be as strict as they currently are. Where does the FCC’s over-censorship come into play in violating the first amendment’s freedom of speech; where do we as Americans draw the line.
When you damper the right of free speech; speech is no longer free at all. Therefore, any regulation of the freedom of speech takes away peoples freedom in speech, thus, is a direct violation of the first amendment. Freedom of speech is not a half way grey area matter. Either a person has complete freedom of speech or they do not. However, for the better operation of everyone in a society there must be laws which restrict even our freedom of speech. The amount to which the freedom is restricted and taken away is up to the citizen elected government officials. The FCC should not put abnormally strict regulations on the freedom of speech with respect to the first amendment and the citizens of the United States. Consideration to a reasonable manner which would benefit all of society rather than just a small margin is important. Also while rationalizing; the FCC should consider how much of banned speech is potentially within earshot almost anywhere.
While cable may have gained an immense amount of popularity among households during the past thirty years, it doesn’t mean the American government should deregulate public broadcasting. Cable does offer a more excessive amount of profanities. Parents are aware of the matter however, and if they so choose to monitor their children’s television consumption to exclude profanities the public broadcasting systems should provide a safe environment without worry. The amount of vulgar language that would be permitted on airwaves, without the networks receiving heavy fines, would be a single infrequent profanity, not several streamed in a row. Another person should not have their freedom of speech abolished due to one profanity that you’re child could easily hear on the street, at the store, and if they are past a certain age almost certainly at school. The FCC shouldn’t hinder the right to free speech so abstractly. Times change, and while the FCC may not want to, the advancements of the American society need to be considered.
The FCC should not take away all restrictions on freedom of speech expressed on public broadcasts, nor should the FCC regulate all uses of profanity on public broadcasts. The extremes of both situations are equally obscure and unrealistic. I believe that while regulations should be in place, so profanities are not allowed to be streaming out during public broadcasts, the FCC should make the restrictions not hinder the right to freedom of speech so highly. Additionally the FCC needs to observe the changes within the American society while adapting the restrictions.
Jessi
