(no subject)
oh no... trying to experiment with cuts again! Censorship in the Broadcast Medium
Throughout ages, censorship has been a determining factor in how successful a country is. A democracy, such as the one in the United States, requires an open exchange of information as enumerated in the first amendment of the constitution. The statement “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” (“The Constitution”) has been refuted often, and many Supreme Court cases have ruled on the constitutionality of the right to free speech. Some believe that there should be strict governmental controls over broadcast material; whereas others believe that governmental control will lead to the downfall of democracy. So how does the government put enough restrictions on the radio or broadcast television to make those in favor of restrictions comfortable, without infringing on the first amendment rights enumerated to the people of the United States?
The Federal Communications Commission determines what can and cannot be said, discussed, or shown on broadcast radio or television. It was created in the Communications Act of 1934 and it was appointed the job of regulating communications by radio. Originally they were only allowed to control the number of broadcast stations a single person can hold, but through court rulings, the commission has been given the power to regulate what subject matter is appropriately discussed during certain parts of the day. A monologue by comedian George Carlin entitled “filthy words” was aired on a Pacifica radio station in 1973. This broadcast contained seven words that were considered too inappropriate to be broadcast on public airwaves, especially at a 2:00 PM airing. The FCC imposed heavy fines and criticized the Pacifica radio station. The Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s decision, giving the FCC the right to monitor broadcasts and fine broadcasters airing inappropriate material between the hours of 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM (Berger 51). This case became know as the Pacifica Case, and it marks the first action the FCC made to regulate the airwaves. Court opinions over the years have changed regarding the constitutionality of censorship in the media, but recent decisions show that censorship of obscene and inappropriate broadcasts can be regulated.
Many agree that censorship on television is necessary. “While idly turning their TV channel selectors, people can run across material they find revolting or offensive” (Berger 54). Broadcasts that contain illegal activities may make the activities seem socially acceptable and actually promote them. By preventing indecent and obscene material from getting on the airwaves, censorship advocates believe it creates a safe harbor for children and society overall. Censoring broadcasts keeps unwanted language off of the airwaves, and protects societal views and morals. Some believe that obscene music and broadcasts can give children sexist or racial views on life. David Lowenthal, an advocate for censorship says “the choice is clear: either a rigorous censorship of the mass media…or an accelerating descent into barbarism and the destruction… of free society itself” (Lowenthal 156). They believe the media can have a devastating effect on impressionable minds and should be restricted as far as the law allows.
There are arguments about censorship on radio and broadcast television being unconstitutional. By regulating what can be seen and heard on the airwaves, it abridges the first amendment rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Laws that are made to protect children affect the whole public, not just people with children. Many believe that it is the parent’s, not the government’s, responsibility to decide what is right to show their children. Also, some think that indecency laws are too vague. They don’t state what exactly an indecency is and therefore broadcasters may feel afraid to speak out on controversial issues. Small and large broadcasters may remain silent in fear of fines from the FCC rather than speaking about important issues that affect the nation. Finally there is fear of the expansion of censorship. “Under the Constitution, the right to speak and write freely includes the public’s right to hear, to read, and to know, the anti-censorship people insist. Censorship becomes dangerous when it limits knowledge and cuts off the process of inquiry. Both are essential to a democracy” (Berger 69). Government’s ability to mingle with the rights of broadcasters cause people against censorship question whether a successful democracy can work if government bodies dictate what material can and can not be shared through broadcasting.
The FCC tells broadcasters whether they’ve overstepped indecency guidelines. Some believe that the FCC’s power needs to be extended in order to maintain a healthy society. Others think that a high amount of censorship within broadcast will lead to limitation in knowledge presented through broadcast medium. It is unknown whether censoring broadcast materials will lead to the ultimate demise of democracy or a utopia of morals and standards. In the meantime, the subject will still be debated and the constitutionality of the issue will continue to change.
Throughout ages, censorship has been a determining factor in how successful a country is. A democracy, such as the one in the United States, requires an open exchange of information as enumerated in the first amendment of the constitution. The statement “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” (“The Constitution”) has been refuted often, and many Supreme Court cases have ruled on the constitutionality of the right to free speech. Some believe that there should be strict governmental controls over broadcast material; whereas others believe that governmental control will lead to the downfall of democracy. So how does the government put enough restrictions on the radio or broadcast television to make those in favor of restrictions comfortable, without infringing on the first amendment rights enumerated to the people of the United States?
The Federal Communications Commission determines what can and cannot be said, discussed, or shown on broadcast radio or television. It was created in the Communications Act of 1934 and it was appointed the job of regulating communications by radio. Originally they were only allowed to control the number of broadcast stations a single person can hold, but through court rulings, the commission has been given the power to regulate what subject matter is appropriately discussed during certain parts of the day. A monologue by comedian George Carlin entitled “filthy words” was aired on a Pacifica radio station in 1973. This broadcast contained seven words that were considered too inappropriate to be broadcast on public airwaves, especially at a 2:00 PM airing. The FCC imposed heavy fines and criticized the Pacifica radio station. The Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s decision, giving the FCC the right to monitor broadcasts and fine broadcasters airing inappropriate material between the hours of 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM (Berger 51). This case became know as the Pacifica Case, and it marks the first action the FCC made to regulate the airwaves. Court opinions over the years have changed regarding the constitutionality of censorship in the media, but recent decisions show that censorship of obscene and inappropriate broadcasts can be regulated.
Many agree that censorship on television is necessary. “While idly turning their TV channel selectors, people can run across material they find revolting or offensive” (Berger 54). Broadcasts that contain illegal activities may make the activities seem socially acceptable and actually promote them. By preventing indecent and obscene material from getting on the airwaves, censorship advocates believe it creates a safe harbor for children and society overall. Censoring broadcasts keeps unwanted language off of the airwaves, and protects societal views and morals. Some believe that obscene music and broadcasts can give children sexist or racial views on life. David Lowenthal, an advocate for censorship says “the choice is clear: either a rigorous censorship of the mass media…or an accelerating descent into barbarism and the destruction… of free society itself” (Lowenthal 156). They believe the media can have a devastating effect on impressionable minds and should be restricted as far as the law allows.
There are arguments about censorship on radio and broadcast television being unconstitutional. By regulating what can be seen and heard on the airwaves, it abridges the first amendment rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Laws that are made to protect children affect the whole public, not just people with children. Many believe that it is the parent’s, not the government’s, responsibility to decide what is right to show their children. Also, some think that indecency laws are too vague. They don’t state what exactly an indecency is and therefore broadcasters may feel afraid to speak out on controversial issues. Small and large broadcasters may remain silent in fear of fines from the FCC rather than speaking about important issues that affect the nation. Finally there is fear of the expansion of censorship. “Under the Constitution, the right to speak and write freely includes the public’s right to hear, to read, and to know, the anti-censorship people insist. Censorship becomes dangerous when it limits knowledge and cuts off the process of inquiry. Both are essential to a democracy” (Berger 69). Government’s ability to mingle with the rights of broadcasters cause people against censorship question whether a successful democracy can work if government bodies dictate what material can and can not be shared through broadcasting.
The FCC tells broadcasters whether they’ve overstepped indecency guidelines. Some believe that the FCC’s power needs to be extended in order to maintain a healthy society. Others think that a high amount of censorship within broadcast will lead to limitation in knowledge presented through broadcast medium. It is unknown whether censoring broadcast materials will lead to the ultimate demise of democracy or a utopia of morals and standards. In the meantime, the subject will still be debated and the constitutionality of the issue will continue to change.