Proposed FCC Decency Rule Change

[Charles L. Cotton]

Perhaps it's just a sign of the times, but the FCC has issued proposed rule making notice 13-86. The FCC is seeking comments on a proposed rule change that would allow the broadcast of profanity/expletives and nudity on the airwaves. I have not read the entire proposal, but the last thing we need is to allow radio, TV and even ham radio broadcasts to contain profanity and/or nudity. (Yes, there is ham radio TV.)

If you would like to comment, please go to http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=13-86" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and click on "Submit a Filing in 13-86." You will have to type your comment in a text editor, word processor, etc. and convert it to a pdf for uploading. There is no provision to type your comments on the FCC website.

Please consider filing a comment opposing any rule change that would allow the use of profanity/expletives or nudity on any of the airwaves, including but not limited to the frequency bands allocated to amateur radio operators.

Thanks,
Chas.

[jimlongley]

Perhaps it's just a sign of the times, but the FCC has issued proposed rule making notice 13-86. The FCC is seeking comments on a proposed rule change that would allow the broadcast of profanity/expletives and nudity on the airwaves. I have not read the entire proposal, but the last thing we need is to allow radio, TV and even ham radio broadcasts to contain profanity and/or nudity. (Yes, there is ham radio TV.)

If you would like to comment, please go to http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=13-86" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and click on "Submit a Filing in 13-86." You will have to type your comment in a text editor, word processor, etc. and convert it to a pdf for uploading. There is no provision to type your comments on the FCC website.

Please consider filing a comment opposing any rule change that would allow the use of profanity/expletives or nudity on any of the airwaves, including but not limited to the frequency bands allocated to amateur radio operators.

Thanks,
Chas.

My comment to the FCC goes out tomorrow.

I might just plead for a return to the Fairness Doctrine too.

[Jumping Frog]

So can our comments express profanity?

Yes, I'll comment appropriately.

[rotor]

Hate to disagree but do we need the government controlling our first ammendment rights too. I personally don't need anyone censoring what I watch. Have you seen what's on the internet? There is no "decency". Control your kids, watch whatever you want.

[JALLEN]

It seems like the only way to attract the eyeballs is to push the boundaries of what has hitherto been considered acceptable.

You can do "I Love Lucy" type shows all day long but nobody would watch, and hence nobody would pay to advertise. I know some of the old shows are in re-run and attract whatever viewership they do, but it is awfully pitiful and there is no money in it.

I don't watch network TV any more. There is nothing of interest, and maybe that is the most effective approach, just don't watch it.

One of the troubling consequences of invoking government to do something every time we encounter something we don't like is that pretty soon, and it's already happened as far as I am concerned, government is regulating everything. We have gone from a society where you could do anything that wasn't forbidden to you can do nothing unless you get permission.

After many years of thinking about this, I find that I tend to favor approaches that force, or at least encourage, individuals to act responsibly or suffer the consequences. When we take that burden away, it lessens the need to do so. It used to be "buyer beware" so you avoided things you didn't know about. Now, there is always somebody else to blame for your irresponsibility and you are off the hook for not taking care of yourself and your own best interests, and that has led to some extremely pernicious consequences, and lamentable ones too. Survival of the fittest!

[SewTexas]

I wonder if they want to do this because so many people are watching BBC shows now....they do allow some language and nudity on their shows, so if say CBS wanted to show a BBC show straight with no editing, well, some of the more popular shows, they couldn't do that with. Or, it could be that they are just lazy.

[JALLEN]

I wonder if they want to do this because so many people are watching BBC shows now....they do allow some language and nudity on their shows, so if say CBS wanted to show a BBC show straight with no editing, well, some of the more popular shows, they couldn't do that with. Or, it could be that they are just lazy.

It would take more than that to get me to watch something on CBS.

I've spent a lot of time in my wife's village in the Bordeaux region of France. Nudity on TV is commonplace, in commercials, in programs, etc. The beaches are filled with girls getting sunburned in places Will Rogers never dreamed of. No big deal! Nobody pays the slightest attention to it. You have to be really something to get noticed, and mostly you won't be. I don't see any real consequence to it, except it makes people think I talk funny. I share the experience of Mark Twain who reported he was never able to make those idiots understand their own language.

As far as bad language goes, maybe that's the answer.... make them speak everything in French. Then nobody will know what they are saying anyway. Given most TV shows, it could be a win-win.

[jimlongley]

Hate to disagree but do we need the government controlling our first ammendment rights too. I personally don't need anyone censoring what I watch. Have you seen what's on the internet? There is no "decency". Control your kids, watch whatever you want.

Long settled as not being a First Amendment issue. Control of the radio spectrum was ceded to the government in 1912, consolidated in 1926, and strengthened in 1934, and "SCOTUSed" in 1972, it's why ham radio operators have to have licenses.

And a comparison to the internet is disingenuous at best and really just not fair. What is on the internet is not broadcast, you have to intentionally go to a web site to see porn, and yes there are ways to "accidentally" get there, but they still take more than just turning the radio on (even allowing for worms and viruses.) Broadcast radio and broadcast TV (not cable) fall in the shared spectrum that is a resource that you and I own co-equally and controlling what anyone can put on the airwaves, that does not require any conscious action beyond turning the device on, is in my best interest if not yours. Yes, it would be nice to know that as a ham if I should slip and use language that I learned in the Navy on the air I won't lose my license, but although I enjoy George Carlin's "Seven Words . . ." I don't want it to be the first thing my granddaughter hears when she turns the TV on for Sesame Street.

[Abraham]

Perhaps if all t.v. / radio sounded like the dialogue from "Deadwood' we'd become so obscene language desensitized it wouldn't matter who said what...

As it is, most folks speak like sailors in private, though I'd rather not hear such on t.v./radio, I'd be a hypocrite if I complained about it.

[SF18C]

Isn't it grand when "we" want the gov't to tell someone else what to do!

I am not sure I ever understood the difference between turning on the TV to CBS/ABC/NBC is somehow drastically different that HBO/skin-a-max/Playboy Channel.
And is it really that much different to turn on a TV or a device with a web browser, be it a PC, Cell Phone, tablet or even a TV to get to the internet????

To me the “decency” argument on the broadcast channels makes about as much sense as banning a gun because of a collapsible stock or fore grip .
No technical difference in how it works, just what you do with it that makes it “scary”.
Maybe everyone needs to put a trigger lock on their remotes, apply for a background check before subscribing to certain cable/satellite/internet packages, and limit the high capacity obscenity channels.

Or you could take your kids to Church, set the example of behavior/decency and provide proper parental guidance.

[Purplehood]

I have to disagree with the proposal. I consider it an infringement on my 1A right.

[rotor]

Hate to disagree but do we need the government controlling our first ammendment rights too. I personally don't need anyone censoring what I watch. Have you seen what's on the internet? There is no "decency". Control your kids, watch whatever you want.

Long settled as not being a First Amendment issue. Control of the radio spectrum was ceded to the government in 1912, consolidated in 1926, and strengthened in 1934, and "SCOTUSed" in 1972, it's why ham radio operators have to have licenses.

And a comparison to the internet is disingenuous at best and really just not fair. What is on the internet is not broadcast, you have to intentionally go to a web site to see porn, and yes there are ways to "accidentally" get there, but they still take more than just turning the radio on (even allowing for worms and viruses.) Broadcast radio and broadcast TV (not cable) fall in the shared spectrum that is a resource that you and I own co-equally and controlling what anyone can put on the airwaves, that does not require any conscious action beyond turning the device on, is in my best interest if not yours. Yes, it would be nice to know that as a ham if I should slip and use language that I learned in the Navy on the air I won't lose my license, but although I enjoy George Carlin's "Seven Words . . ." I don't want it to be the first thing my granddaughter hears when she turns the TV on for Sesame Street.

So I guess what beams down from Dish and Direct TV is different than what beams from the antenna that is 2 miles from my house. That radio spectrum that is "given" for satellite tv is ok for me to receive even hard core porn but the radio spectrum that originates from a ground based antenna has to be purified by our government so that my pristine eyes and ears won't be contaminated. Give me a break. I don't need government telling me what is decent. All I have to do is hit a remote control if I don't like it. This is "view control" in place of "gun control". Neither are welcome.

[canvasbck]

It seems like the only way to attract the eyeballs is to push the boundaries of what has hitherto been considered acceptable.

You can do "I Love Lucy" type shows all day long but nobody would watch, and hence nobody would pay to advertise. I know some of the old shows are in re-run and attract whatever viewership they do, but it is awfully pitiful and there is no money in it.

I have to disagree. 'The Bible' miniseries was broadly watched and was , by all accounts a big hit. 'Touched by an Angel' had a pretty good run as a drama series. There are other examples, but good, clean programming is being watched by enough people that it can be a profitable venture.

I agree with the rest of your post. If I personally don't want to watch TV if all that is available is vulgar programming, my TV has what is apparently a unique feature.............I call it the power button, others call it the on/off switch. I don't need government regulation to keep that stuff out of my living room, I can turn the idiot box off.

[baldeagle]

Hate to disagree but do we need the government controlling our first ammendment rights too. I personally don't need anyone censoring what I watch. Have you seen what's on the internet? There is no "decency". Control your kids, watch whatever you want.

The first amendment has to do with political speech not commercial speech. Public broadcasting is free and freely available and is not analogous to the internet or cable, both of which you have to pay for. Since the government owns the airwaves - and by extension WE do - (long settled legal doctrine) they have the right to control what is allowed to be broadcast so long as they don't attempt to suppress political speech. If people want profanity and nudity they have ample choices which they can pay for and watch. Profanity and nudity doesn't need to be sanctioned by the government to be broadcast over public airwaves.

I personally am disgusted by the current state of "art" in this country. If you can't tell a story without lacing it with profanity or portraying humans like they are rutting pigs with no self control, then perhaps you should think about the fact that you are not really a story teller. At one time Ozzie and Harriet couldn't even be seen in the same bed together. Now we have actors and actresses slobbering all over each other, tearing their clothes off and copulating against the wall because they can't even wait long enough to get supine. It's not a portrayal of real life. It's a degradation of the human condition.

The government should not be a part of promoting that kind of behavior.

[Purplehood]

Hate to disagree but do we need the government controlling our first ammendment rights too. I personally don't need anyone censoring what I watch. Have you seen what's on the internet? There is no "decency". Control your kids, watch whatever you want.

The first amendment has to do with political speech not commercial speech. Public broadcasting is free and freely available and is not analogous to the internet or cable, both of which you have to pay for. Since the government owns the airwaves - and by extension WE do - (long settled legal doctrine) they have the right to control what is allowed to be broadcast so long as they don't attempt to suppress political speech. If people want profanity and nudity they have ample choices which they can pay for and watch. Profanity and nudity doesn't need to be sanctioned by the government to be broadcast over public airwaves.

I personally am disgusted by the current state of "art" in this country. If you can't tell a story without lacing it with profanity or portraying humans like they are rutting pigs with no self control, then perhaps you should think about the fact that you are not really a story teller. At one time Ozzie and Harriet couldn't even be seen in the same bed together. Now we have actors and actresses slobbering all over each other, tearing their clothes off and copulating against the wall because they can't even wait long enough to get supine. It's not a portrayal of real life. It's a degradation of the human condition.

The government should not be a part of promoting that kind of behavior.

Just because something is long settled legal doctrine does not mean that it is right. What happens when the FCC starts coming up with the notion that conventional marriage should not be promoted in an effort to show 'equity'?
In my mind when the government has become so intimately involved in something that is going to ultimately offend one person or another (wittingly or unwittingly) I just have to say, 'back off'.