Final Paper

The media is an inescapable part of modern culture. We depend on the media for entertainment, news, education, weather, sports and even music. With more and more access to the media, we now also have access to a plethora of both good quality and inappropriate TV content. 95% of all teens ages 12-17 are now online (Pew Internet and American Life Project). This means that 95% of Teens and anyone else are at high risk of seeing or hearing indecent programming. As defined by the FCC, Broadcast Indecency is, "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities." The FCC's current method of dealing with this issue is by issuing a monetary fine to the network in question. However, this policy contains numerous weaknesses.

For starters, the FCC does not act until a formal complaint has been filed, in which then they will launch an investigation on the accused party. Once everything has been reviewed, the FCC issues a maximum fine of $325,000 per incident; as of 2005. These are outrageous amounts, especially to be given for each individual indecent. The worst part is that it is the responsibility of the network itself to pay the fine, not the individual who actually was indecent. For example, during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime Show, while performing alongside Justin Timberlake, Janet Jackson had a wardrobe malfunction; causing one of her breast to be exposed briefly on live television. This caused millions of parents to complain to the FCC; forcing the FCC to then issue a $550,000 fine to the CBS network ($225,000 more than the legal maximum). This is simply one of many incidents in which the FCC has offered inconsistent and unfair rulings. Lastly, in, “2003 through 2004, [it was found that a single organization called], the Parents Television Council, [were] responsible for over 99.8% of all indecency complaints [sent] to the FCC” (Mother Jones). Showing that, while Broadcast Indecency may be an issue, it is not one that many people view so harshly; meaning there are much simpler ways to fix it than the current solution.

This is a problem because, by telling citizens what they can and can not watch, it interferes with their Constitutional right of Freedom of Expression; “the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas” (Hacker News) and “the act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used” (Wind Farm Action). Freedom of expression is a necessity in order to keep America self-governed. If the American people are to be truly conscious of themselves and of their country, they must be able to decide for themselves what should be seen or heard by each individually. They must have access to all information, ideas and viewpoints, regardless of how it is or what is presented.

Enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 19, 1934, The Communications Act of 1934 combined and helped organized “federal regulation of telephone, telegraph, and radio communications” (Justice Information Sharing). The Act created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to manage and control these industries and the federal government has updated these regulations to keep up with new communications technologies such as cable and satellite television. The Communication Act’s purpose was to police communications in the United states for broadcast indecency. Broadcast Indecency involves “material that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium” (First Amendment Center). Specifically, “Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464 (18 U.S.C. § 1464), prohibits the utterance of any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication” (FCC). In other words, it is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. If found in violation, the Commission may take away the distributor's license, impose them with a fine of monetary value, or simply issue them with a warning, depending on the severity of the case.

Throughout history media has always held a strong influence over its teenage viewers, especially now in a world pervaded by technology. With the increasing new technological findings and the decreasing standards of society, there comes negative impacts. Throughout history it has been proven that there are strong correlations that exists between the exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior, to body images and eating disorders, and to sexual content and increased sexual activity.

Teenage years are often the time in one's life when they are are creating their identities and often times the media creates them for them. The mass media surrounds us with images of the “thin ideal” for females, an ideal that has become increasingly thinner since the 1950’s and thus increasingly unrealistic for most girls and women. “69% of girls in one study said that magazine models influence their idea of a perfect body shape” (NEDawareness). Recently, many males have started to become insecure about their physical appearance as advertising and other media images raise the standard and idealize well-built men. The National Eating Disorders Association points out that, the average fashion model is thinner than 98 percent of women.

Television and movies often show characters using drugs or alcohol, engaging in sexual intercourse, and behaving violently. aviors. At such a substantial stage of development, the glorification makes it harder for children to make responsible behavioral choices. The Mediascope National Television Violence Study found that children are learning aggressive attitudes and behaviors, becoming desensitized to real world violence and developing a fear of being victimized by violence. A landmark study published by the Rand Corporation in 2004 found that watching television shows with sexual content is associated with earlier teen engagement in sexual activity. Across all age groups, children who saw the most sex on TV were twice as likely to initiate intercourse within the next year as were those who saw the least. In 2003, WebMD conducted a year long study on 522 black girls between the ages of 14 and 18 from non-urban, lower socioeconomic neighborhoods. Researchers found that compared to those who never or rarely watched these videos, the girls who viewed these gangsta videos for at least 14 hours per week were far more likely to practice numerous destructive behaviors” (WebMD).

However, there are also many positive impacts media has on society, especially children. Teens are able to gain, “political and social awareness by [doing thing such as,] watching the news, current affairs and documentaries” (Raising Children Network). When children are exposed to such material, they are becoming more aware of the world around them, aside from their immediate surroundings that limit them. According to Children Now, ¨knowledge and understanding of news events can teach kids a sense of belonging and social responsibility.¨ Exposure to news and information about events that take place around the world also allows children to take part in charitable acts (i.e. volunteering) or to consider other ways to engage in good deeds.

They also can develop social skills through “connecting with others on social networking sites” (Raising Children Network). Friendships on social media are often extensions of existing, face-to-face relationship and in some cases are newly formed ones. This allows them access to wider networks and new/more learning and social opportunities. Other benefits include increased confidence, more support, and heightened media literacy. Social media diversifies children' social skills, which will help them navigate through our increasing technologically driven society.

Good or bad, these impacts all stem from one thing, the intense competition between the networks and the cable industry. Youth spend nearly 7 hours/day using media, and the vast majority of them have access to a bedroom television, computer, the Internet, a video-game console, and a cell phone” (Pediatrics). Also, young minds are more susceptible to the media’s portrayal of beauty, money, and comfort. In conclusion, network executives and companies know that the youth are their target demographic, so they gear their efforts towards them, regardless of the outcomes.

The Principal policies used to address Broadcast Indecency are Telecommunication policies. Telecommunication is a form of communicating at a distance by technological means. For example, talking on a phone or chatting on a computer. Throughout history, many laws have been placed in order to, not only fix the problem of Broadcast Indecency, but to also prevent it from becoming worse.

On August 13, 1912, congress approved The Radio Act of 1912. The Radio Act was, “the first [act] in the United States to require radio stations to be licenced” ( Early Radio History). Also, following the sinking of the Titanic, the act mandated that all ships continuously monitor distress signals. The U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor held the power to impose fines, to revoke licenses and finally, to seize equipment. Implementing and enforcing the Act was the responsibility of the United States Secretary of Commerce and Labor, Herbert Hoover. However his powers were limited and he was not able to deny broadcasting licenses to anyone who wanted one or to reassign broadcast frequencies. The result was that many people perceived the airwaves to suffer from "chaos," with too many stations trying to be heard on too few frequencies. More than ten years late a new act was created to remedy the problems that were previously presented.

The Radio Act of 1927, succeeded the previous Radio Act on February 23, 1927. This Act was enacted to bring order to the chaos of radio broadcasting. It was “intended to regulate all forms of interstate and foreign radio transmissions and communications within the United States... to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of interstate and foreign radio transmission...and to provide for the use of such channels” (Early Radio History). The Act established the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), whose responsibility was to regulate radio communications inside the United States. “The Commission was responsible for granting and denying licenses, and assigning frequencies and power levels for each licensee” (US Legal). However, they were not given any power regarding Censorship.

On June 19th, 1934, The Communications Act of 1934 was enacted by Franklin D. Roosevelt. This Act, “consolidated existing radio, television, and telephone regulations and created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to oversee all interstate and foreign communications” (Roosevelt Institute). The FRC could only regulate national radio and radio communication between ships, but, the FCC covers any kind of wired and wireless communications. The FCC was created to replace the FRC and it also received the power to regulate television services from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC).

In 1949, the FCC adopted the Fairness Doctrine, a policy that viewed station licensees as "public trustees"; deeming them responsible for addressing controversial issues of public importance. The key requirement was that stations allowed opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of views. However, President Reagan vetoed the Doctrine in 1987, due to insufficient votes to override the veto.

On February 8th, 1996, signed by President Bill Clinton, The Telecommunications Act of 1996 included the Internet as a form of broadcasting. The goal of the law was to "let anyone enter any communications business—to let any communications business compete in any market against any other"(FCC). This allowed for Media cross-ownership such as, Comcast, Viacom and 21st Century Fox. The law mandated that the broadcasting industry develop a rating system to identify sexual, violent and/or other indecent programming. It also required TV manufacturers to install the V-chip in all newly manufactured tv sets.

Although there are no specific state laws regarding Broadcast Indecency, there are a few that concurrently deal with both federal and state; such as the required application for license renewal and the Miller Test. Each broadcasting station must file an application for license renewal every four years. As stated by the FCC, in exchange for obtaining a license, each radio and television licensee is required by law to operate its station in the “public interest, convenience and necessity”(FCC). This means that it must air programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of its local community.

The Miller Test (also called the Three Prong Obscenity Test) is the Supreme Court’s test that determines whether something can be labeled obscene. It consists of three parts and if the subject in question passes, it is not protected by the First Amendment and can be prohibited. The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California, in which . The first two parts are compared to the standards of the individuals community and the last part is compared to what is reasonable to the common good of the entire US. An important issue is that Miller asks for an interpretation of what the "average" person finds offensive, rather than what the more sensitive persons in the community are offended by.

In general, freedom of speech and due process are considered two of America's integral values, as protected by the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and the United States Constitution. This freedom however, has caused many controversies over time and constant power struggles between an empowered and a limited government. Some say, the FCC has the authority, under the rule of Congress, to punish broadcasters for indecency. On the other hand, others say, society’s Ethical Relativism does not give the FCC sufficient authority to punish broadcasters for indecency. Although the FCC does legally have the authority to punish broadcasts for indecency under a Supreme Court majority ruling, due to the vague regulations given by the FCC and the constant changing of them, each case deserves to be reviewed separately; regarding constitutional and ethical rights.

Some say the FCC has the authority to punish broadcasters for indecency under the precedent rulings of the Supreme Court. A precedent is “a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment” (The Free Dictionary). In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, the Supreme Court gave the FCC the authority, “to enforce the indecency standard between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., local time. when children are more likely to be in the audience” (FCC). As a consequence, the Commission does not take action on indecent material aired between 10:01 p.m. and 5:59 a.m. In this way, constitutionally protected free speech rights of adults are “balanced” with the need to protect children from harmful content. While the case and ruling took place over 30 years ago, it does provide clear and concrete regulations. Opponents of the FCC argue, however, that the FCC does the exact opposite.

Other’s say that the vagueness of the FCC’s regulations and it’s inconsistent stances have weakened their credibility and authority. Therefore, not giving the FCC sufficient authority to punish broadcasters for indecency. The Communications Act of 1934 says that, “nothing in its language gives the FCC "the power of censorship". Then immediately afterwards it states, “No person...shall utter any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication." In FCC v. FOX Television Stations, under the precedent of the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation case, the FCC fined FOX for broadcasting profane language during a live awards show, although they previously said fleeting and isolated expletives did not violate its indecency rule. The FCC argued that previous decisions referring to "fleeting" expletives were merely staff letters that did not represent its position on the matter. One example of instability frequently cited by television networks is the Federal Communications Commission's decision not to punish ABC for airing "Saving Private Ryan," with its strong language, while objecting to the same words when uttered by celebrities on live awards shows. In consequence, broadcasters have been left guessing by the FCC's contextual approach to enforcement. The National Association of Broadcasters says, “the FCC's indecency policy is void for vagueness…[it] chills protected speech and that the commission's authority to regulate content is limited.” While these are only a few examples of vague FCC rulings, it does reveal that there are inconsistencies within the commission.

Under Supreme Court majority ruling, the FCC legally has the authority to punish broadcasts for indecency. However, due to the vague regulations given by the FCC and the constant changing of them, each case deserves to be reviewed separately; regarding constitutional rights. The purpose of the government is to protect citizens and government regulated airwaves, assist with this. The FCC’s ability to punish broadcasts for whatever they deem indecent is a form of governmental authority abuse. By deeming all FCC policies as constitutional, they are giving the government full say on what is and what is not appropriate. This not only censors citizens but, it also infringes on their Freedom of Speech. Based on the amount of complaints, it seems that it is parents who have the greatest problem with indecency. However, they are leaving the job of “parenting” to the FCC itself.

Some say that the government should regulate television censorship. According to Commissioner Mignon L. Clyburn, “Citizens depend on laws that protect their families, and look to both industry and government to ensure that no child is unduly influenced by harmful material before they reach the age of understanding” (RCFP). Additionally, Joanne Cantor, director of the Center for Communication Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, argues that, “government actions restricting violent media are not censorship but provide parents with the necessary information to protect their children” (Media Violence). She also adds, “simply communicating the dangers of media violence is often not enough.”

Others say that parents, not the government, should regulate television censorship. As pointed out in the case FCC v. Fox Television Stations, the Government’s definition of indecent programming is inadequate and ambiguous. If parents were to leave parenting up to others, children would become confused as they would be taught many contradicting ideas and lessons for, people have different values. Therefore, parents are best positioned to impart their own values to their own children.

Parents who seek stricter broadcast indecency rules are asking the government to do their jobs as parents. For starters, in 2003-04, the Parents Television Council was responsible for over 99.8% of all indecency complaints to the FCC (Mother Jones). This is the same group that constintly harrasses the FCC to punish broadcasters for what they believe should not be accessible to children. It is the parents duty to educate, and in turn, censor children. There are many technological gadgets and apps that assist parents, such as V-Chips, various ratings systems, and set top box parental controls. However, just because some parents do not take advantage of these tools does not mean the government can use parental inactivity to justify regulations.

A poll was recently taken randomly by both Students and Staff at the Parkside campus of Cesar Chavez High School. It was first asked whether they, as individuals, believed the media should be regulated at all. The results showed that, 69.2% believed the media should be regulated, 23.1% believed the media should not be regulated at all, and 7.7% were unsure whether the media should or shouldn’t be regulated. After reviewing the results and seeing the large percent of those in support of regulation, another question was asked, should the media be regulated by the government. The results showed that 85.7% said no, the government should not regulate the media and only 14.3% said yes, the government should regulate the media (There were no unsures). This leads to the conclusion that, while the media should have some form of regulation, it should not be determined by the government or one of its agencies.

This shows the universal tension between a limited government and an empowered one. The purpose of the government is to protect citizens and government regulated airwaves, assists with this. The FCC’s ability to punish broadcasts for whatever they deem indecent is a form of governmental authority abuse. By giving the FCC the discretion, the legislature and the courts are giving the government full say on what is and what is not appropriate. This not only censors citizens but, it also infringes on their Freedom of Speech.

Although the current policy of the FCC issuing monetary fines is a type of solution for the problem of Broadcast Indecency, as addressed before, the current policy has many weaknesses. The FCC’s regulation for both television and radio indecency is inconsistent. The FCC only acts once their is a complaint presented to them. The FCC's monetary fine amounts are unreasonable. Finally, complaints regarding Broadcast Indecency predominantly come from the Parents Television Council.

There are not many alternative policies that are currently being enforced at the time, except for that of the mandatory installation of the V-Chip in all TV sets 13 inches or larger. Though this is a precautionary measure, “54% of [all] parents who own [a V-chip equipped television set] are not aware of the fact.” That means that more than half of all parents have the ability to block their children from seeing certain programmings, but do not know how to. If the Federal government were to create a national campaign that promoted parental controls, then that number could drastically drop. V-Chips also help parents by displaying the ratings of each individual television show and/or movie. However, it is blatantly obvious that not all shows and movies are rated on the same scale. For example, both Frozen and Top Gun, are movies that were given the rating of PG (parental guidance) by the MPAA. One being an animated Disney movie about the love of two sisters that eventually saves the town and the other being an Action/Adventure movie about a cocky and troubled pilot who attends one of the top Pilot schools where he not only wins over the girl but also has sex with her in a scene of the movie. This is possible because there is no written guideline on how movies and shows should be rated. They are simply decided, individually, by a group of people with parenting experience. This could be improved by having a select group of people that represent each and all aspects of the community, create a national guideline regarding ratings so that all programs are rated equally and fairly. Republicans are in favor of this policy, “through the FCC's net neutrality rule, [which] is trying to micromanage telecom” (Cnet). With the creation of one overall guideline, they will be able to successfully do so and cases will be fairly and equally ruled. It is likely this policy could be passed due to the lack of gray area in indecency complaints.

The Federal Government should also promote these parental controls so that everyone knows what they each are and how to effectively use them. As opposed to the first alternative policy, Democrats are in favor of this policy, being that they are, “strongly committed to protecting an open [media] that fosters investment, innovation, creativity, consumer choice, and free speech, unfettered by censorship or undue violations of privacy” (Public Knowledge). If the Democrats and Republicans can come together and agree on funding for this, this policy could possibly be passed.

The simplest alternative would be to simply monitor what children watch and for parents to turn off the television set or anything else where they feel their child is receiving indecent and obscene messages. Although, due to the increasing availability of technology, parents are not always able to keep up with everything their child views. This, however, does not make it right for parents to blame the shows and/or networks. Also, along with the increase of technological ability, there is a huge ethical and cultural shift in society. It is very noticeable that most, if not all, complaints regarding Broadcast Indecency are made by older people who hold highly differing morals and what they find acceptable. For example, younger people today may find it easier to accept homosexual individuals as the equivalent to a heterosexual one. On the other hand, an older person may see this as blasphemous and a form of corruption. This is a big problem for people when it comes to having the government regulate the media. “The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term” (FCC). Out of all the five appointed chair members, none are below the age of forty (the youngest being Commissioner Ajit Pai at 42 years old); causing people to believe their rulings and policies are outdated. The best solution to this would be to create a Conduit Jury consisting of individuals that represent all factors of the community as whole in terms of race, gender, age, etc. They would then be able to decide on matters of Broadcast Indecency in the media.Democrats are in favor of this community inclusive policy. If the Democrats and Republicans came together to address the public objection of government interference in the media, then maybe this policy could be passed.

If all else fails, one solution remains. It, however, would be the toughest to be put into action. The United States and the United Kingdom both deal with constant complaints from television and movie viewers on a daily basis; however, the viewers in the United Kingdom complain there is not enough censorship. On the other hand, American viewers feel there is too much censorship. It is clear that both countries need a balance and outrageous by co-regulating the FCC (US) and OFCOM (UK). The only problem is that having such a broad partnership could lead to many setbacks dealing with both parties and both parties' governments. Due to the the Democratic and Republican parties having contrasting views on how telecommunications should be managed however, it is not likely this policy will be passed.

Upon complaint, the Federal Communications Commission, an independent agency of the United States government, investigates matters of obscenity and indecency. They then issue monetary fines to the networks in which the obscene or indecent event was broadcast on; regardless if the event was previously planned or not. Many argue whether the FCC has the sufficient authority to punish broadcasters for indecency. Some say by law they do and others say due to Society’s Ethical Relativism they don’t. People also argue that parents who seek stricter Broadcast Indecency rules asking the government to do their jobs as parents. Some believe because people have different values, parents should handle their own families when it comes to what is appropriate or not. Others believe that simply communicating the dangers aren’t enough, therefore the government must take it in their own hands.

The current policy dealing with Broadcast Indecency has constantly been criticized, prompting numerous alternative policies to emerge. These include: the creation of one standard TV/movie rating guideline to be used for all movies and shows, a national campaign to promote parental controls, a Condorcet Jury system, composed of citizen representatives, as a substitute for the current FCC Committee system, and even the co-regulation of the US’ FCC and the UK’s Ofcom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted and the United States received its independence from the tyrannic rule of King George III and Great Britain. By allowing the government to control the airwaves and, we are allowing our country to revert over 200 years. A free society is a well informed and enlightened one, Tyrannies thrive on mass ignorance.