IS THE FCC becoming a danger to free speech?

[rainstorm]

FCC leader to stay tuned to racy soaps


By Chris Baker
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Soap operas have become a potential target in the Federal Communications Commission's crackdown on broadcast indecency, according to a key official who said the programs might be too "steamy" for daytime television.
Michael J. Copps, the FCC commissioner who has led the agency's campaign against adult-oriented radio programs, told reporters Wednesday that the FCC should review whether soap operas violate the agency's indecency prohibitions, according to Television Week, an industry trade publication.
Mr. Copps, one of two Democrats on the five-member panel, said he stumbled across a racy soap-opera scene while channel-surfing recently.
"It was pretty steamy stuff for the middle of the afternoon," Mr. Copps said.
Under FCC rules, over-the-air television and radio stations cannot broadcast material involving sexual and excretory functions between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children might tune in. The FCC does not regulate content that airs on cable and satellite television.
Mr. Copps made his remarks after a National Association of Broadcasters' summit on "responsible programming." The daylong meeting was closed to the press, although Mr. Copps — one of several FCC officials who attended — met with reporters afterward.
Mr. Copps could not be reached yesterday because he was traveling, an aide said. The commissioner's remarks do not necessarily mean he will seek an investigation into soap operas or daytime television in general, the aide said.
FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell declined comment when he was asked at the summit about Mr. Copps' remarks, according to a transcript provided by his press office.
Representatives for the other FCC commissioners and ABC, CBS and NBC, all of which air soap operas, did not return telephone calls or declined comment yesterday.
The government's scrutiny of TV and radio programs has intensified since Justin Timberlake removed part of Janet Jackson's top, briefly exposing her breast, during the Super Bowl halftime show on Feb. 1.
Since then, the FCC has announced a new round of fines against racy radio programs, and the nation's largest broadcasters have adopted tougher standards against airing material that the government deems offensive.
Legislation that dramatically would raise fines against broadcasters is moving through Congress.
Soap operas largely have escaped public criticism, although the programs have started to show more skin in recent years.
CBS representatives have denied published reports that the recent firing of "Guiding Light" producer John Conboy was linked to the new sensitivities about indecency. Mr. Conboy was dismissed in February, about a week after the show aired a scene in which a character pulled down her boyfriend's underpants, revealing his bare bottom.
The amount of sex featured on daytime serials is usually blown out of proportion, according to Lynn Leahey, editorial director of Soap Opera Digest and Soap Opera Weekly, the industry's leading publications.
Most viewers watch the programs because they are interested in stories about romance and family relationships, she said.
"The bottom line is, these shows are about romance, not sex. It's always been that way; it will always be that way," Ms. Leahey said.
The nine daytime dramas draw about 30 million viewers a week, but ratings have fallen steadily in the past two decades as more women — the traditional audience for soap operas — have entered the work force. The ratings only measure household viewers and not people who watch the serials on college campuses and during their office lunch breaks.
An FCC spokesman was unable to provide the number of complaints it has received about daytime television in recent years.
A recent "Oprah Winfrey Show" installment that featured a sexually explicit discussion has generated about 700 complaints, the spokesman said, although that might be because radio host Howard Stern has been urging his listeners to complain about Miss Winfrey's show.


this is becoming dangerous. we are better with no censorship than too much.

[GalvestonDuck]

this is becoming dangerous. we are better with no censorship than too much.

Bah humbug!

It's not censorship. They simply trying to get television programs back to the moral and ethical standards to which they were once held. TV and radio personalities have crossed a line and the FCC is telling them to take a few steps back.

No biggie.

And you still can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. That's not censorship either. It's just common sense.

[pawlee]

duck, those smileys are too cool. been meaning to mention that. p

(is that duck icon beating it's head against the wall or just groovin'?)

[GalvestonDuck]

LOL! Thanks! They're courtesy of the mods/admin at S2K who post them for us in the emoticon menu.

As for the duck, I'm pretty sure he's just groovin'. I put him up there back when we were posting about the threat to TX refineries and Bonnie and Linda told Texans to keep our heads up. So, as far as I'm concerned, he's actually supposed to be on the look out.

[streetsoldier]

Nice job, AFLAC!

The FCC has not been actively cleaning up the airwaves and "tubes", as it has a mandate to do...especially within the last 14 years.

All the FCC is doing now, under public pressure, is the job they are supposed to do...and it's about TIME, IMHO.

[rainstorm]

i totally disagree. where do you stop once censorship begins? soap operas have been on for years, and i dont think they have harmed anyone.

[Stephanie]

I agree with Duck and Bill. I'm glad to see that the FCC is starting to clean things up abit. The Janet Jackson thing really bothered me - that went WAY past the line. There are so many channels available now that provide the appropriate forums for tha kind of stuff. I say keep it where they belong.

[GalvestonDuck]

i totally disagree. where do you stop once censorship begins? soap operas have been on for years, and i dont think they have harmed anyone.

It's not a matter of whether they've harmed anyone or not -- at least, not "physically."

Way back in the early days of the cinema, they had the "Thirteen Points" and the Hays Production Code. Those are long gone and probably never will return (look 'em up -- too long to explain here). But they were created in an effort to regulate the entertainment industry (motion pictures, specifically) so that no one would be "morally" harmed by what they saw and so that the audience would not be driven to side with or feel sympathy for criminals, evil-doers, and sinners.

Jack Valenti did away with the Hays code in '66 and then established the more current standards like we see used today. It allows producers to do what they want to do, at their own discretion, and then the MPAA rates the production accordingly.* Those ratings allow the audience to know what to expect when seeing a film, or better yet, how to choose which film to see.

The television industry eventually adopted a ratings system also. Certain shows are held to specific standards if they are to be aired during daytime hours and on non-cable or pay channels. Cable channels have a bit more leniency in what they can and can not show.

And again, I'll reiterate -- it's all about industry standards, not free speech. YOU, as a citizen, still have every right to speak your mind (you do it here, don't you?). That's not going to change for a very long time -- unless the Taliban and al-Qaeda decide to take drastic measures. You are still allowed to say what you want to say, as long as it's not slanderous or perjurous or "Fire" in a crowded theater.

And for some odd reason, you're even allowed to burn an American flag and call that "free speech." As far as I'm concerned, if someone is that ignorant that they can't put into words (aka, SPEECH) what they want to say, then they don't need to be saying it at all. What the heck does burning a flag really say? "Look a' me...ah kin start a fahr without burnin' myself."

(Disclaimer: No arguments were copied or pasted during the production of this post.)

*accordingly -- Just can't help but think of my mom whenever I use that word. When I was young, I remember her always telling me, as I was on my way out the door to go to a slumber party or go out to play or whatever -- "Remember who you are and act accordingly."

[OtherHD]

And for some odd reason, you're even allowed to burn an American flag and call that "free speech." As far as I'm concerned, if someone is that ignorant that they can't put into words (aka, SPEECH) what they want to say, then they don't need to be saying it at all. What the heck does burning a flag really say? "Look a' me...ah kin start a fahr without burnin' myself."

It's called expressing disapproval for your country's policies. I myself would never burn an American flag, but it is certainly an effective tool for turning heads and attracting attention. Actions speak louder than words.

[streetsoldier]

Actions speak louder than words? GOOD...maybe you should volunteer, say, for "first responder", SAR, FEMA...i.e., become "part of the solution".

If they'd still have me, I'd be doing just that.

[GalvestonDuck]

And for some odd reason, you're even allowed to burn an American flag and call that "free speech." As far as I'm concerned, if someone is that ignorant that they can't put into words (aka, SPEECH) what they want to say, then they don't need to be saying it at all. What the heck does burning a flag really say? "Look a' me...ah kin start a fahr without burnin' myself."

It's called expressing disapproval for your country's policies. I myself would never burn an American flag, but it is certainly an effective tool for turning heads and attracting attention. Actions speak louder than words.

Like I said, my point, and therefore my opinion concerning it, is that it's not speech (nor press, nor assembly, nor petition, nor religion), as stated in the First Amendment.

If actions speak louder than words and somehow those actions are protected as "free speech" even though it's not speech at all, then does that mean someone can walk up and spit in a politician's face as a means of expressing disapproval and then defend his actions because he was exercising his right to "free speech?" No, because it's assault.

How about the press? Can a producer of magazines depicting pre-teens engaged in God-knows-what kinds of activities claim that he has a right to publish the photos because the freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment? No, because it is illegal to visually depict minors engaged in sexual activity (as well as a bevy of other laws which would be broken in this case).

How about religion? Can a woman go out and stone her husband and another woman to death because he committed adultery, and the Bible clearly states in Leviticus that a man and his adulteress shall be put to death? No, because nowadays, that's call murder. It's illegal and not protected under the First Amendment rights concerning freedom of religion.

My point is that there are already certain things, such as burning a flag or even a cross, that are allowed as "freedom of speech" even though, in my opinion as well as others', they cross a line of decency. And then there are certain things that we do not allow and will not allow, although many people can try to argue that not allowing these things violates their First Amendment rights.

We're not being threatened with measures that go back to the strict censorship standards of the 1930's, '40's, or 50's. The FCC is simply trying to dig deeper and draw the line of decency back into focus so that the industry will pay attention and realize when it's about to be crossed. All I'm saying is that no one really needs to fear for their freedom of speech. It's not going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

i totally disagree. where do you stop once censorship begins? soap operas have been on for years, and i dont think they have harmed anyone.

For once I completely agree with you. I am beginning to intensely dislike the FCC chairman; from what I can tell he seems to be a self-righteous ***hole who's hellbent on making the media meet Christian standards and morals. Going after soap operas of all things proves beyond a doubt that this guy is out of control. I think your question is completely valid; once this starts, where does it end? When there is never any hint of sexual acts (even implied) on cable or network television? When no one can say "damn" without fear of a multi-million dollar fine? When everyone across this great nation is praising the Lawd and confessing His Name?

All joking aside, I strongly believe that anyone who has a problem with soap operas being aired on network television -- during the afternoon when most kids are at school -- is in a small minority. If they are morally strict enough to have a problem with it, they have every right to keep their kids from watching it while the rest of us enjoy getting our money's worth from the TV and cable service (not that I watch soap operas, of course... ).

[rainstorm]

you make a good point, and i would be equally worried if a liberal got control of the fcc. the best policy is no censorship(except for graphic sex or a few curse words), other than the marketplace.