Gurothostrin said
Currently here in the U.S. there're efforts to radically strengthen the indecency rules for broadcasters. The really annoying bit of this is that the people who are trying to do this seem to think that their personal beliefs should apply to everyone. No one should be watching things they see as being bad. It doesn't matter that they are going after things they themselves may never watch. It is nothing more than inflicting one's personal beliefs on other people.
Idylleseethes has helpfully linked through to the FCC’s Policy Statement, which sets out the rules as they currently stand. (Impenitent you may also find this summary version
here helpful, I know I did.)
I’d be interested to read a little more about the proposed strengthening of these rules, to learn if this is something being initiated by the FCC, or something they are being lobbied to do. I have searched the FCC site, and can find no notice of proposed rule-making or a media release, so I’m a bit in the dark here. I gather that this is a proposed extension to subscription/cable services (??)
I’m also interested in the hostile reaction here to the FCC, some of which is framed in pretty strong terms. Perhaps this can be explained by the affiliations of the people appointed to be FCC commissioners (and there’s a new Chair, I believe), or by the perceived threat that your media is under threat. Or is it just this possible broadening of the application of the rules to non-free services? More background information would be much appreciated.
Australia does have a classification scheme which applies to all broadcast media, even the subscription services (although the burden on those services is minimal compared to the free-to-air ones.) Our media is not fined over breaches of the classification requirements, mostly the findings are publicised and that’s that.
(As an aside, the prohibition against the broadcast of ‘blasphemous, indecent and obscene’ matter was repealed long ago. I haven’t noticed yet that we’re going to the Bad Place any faster than anyone else, but that could be that I’m not looking in the right places.)
Our scheme has the objective that children should be protected from exposure to (potentially) harmful material. Not all kids have vigilant parents unfortunately, and even those that do may find that they aren’t so quick with the remote control that they can flick the TV or radio off before damage is done. So the broadcast day is divided into classification time zones, and a system of classification categories is provided so that parents can choose appropriately for their children. It’s really not that different to Britain where they have the watershed (9pm), and in the US you have the 6am-10pm non-indecency zone. The essential idea is the same, to limit the broadcast of such material to a more adult time of day. One of the things I do find remarkable between countries – even Western, English speaking ones with a fairly common cultural background – are the differences in tolerance for some things. Janet Jackson’s nipple might have attracted media interest here (from the titillation point of view, pardon the pun) but I doubt very much if it would have broken any of the current classification codes. Partial nudity is permitted even in general viewing time.
I would be interested to hear from you why having such a framework in place is such an infringement of (1) freedom of speech and (2) your perceived right as an adult to see and hear what you want.
From my own regulatory perspective, this is not intended as ‘censorship’ or as a fetter to free speech. There are enough other people out there who will have that effect: the media owners have a greater say about what does and what does not go to air, for example. Then and again, Australia doesn’t have a First Amendment guarantee of free speech. But I’d argue that absolute freedom of speech is illusory, no matter which jurisdiction you might be living in. However, like the religious question that might be one for another thread.
(Speaking of pledges, we used to say “I honour my God, I serve my Queen, I salute my flagâ€. I don’t think any state school does this any more, though.)