Fcc's Stance On Profane, Indecent And Obscene Speech

The FCC’s stance on profane, indecent and obscene speech has come under fire and been argued in the course numerous times for its implementation and enforcement. Proponent of the Commission's policies refer to the harm that profane, indecent, and obscene programming does to children. However, they choose to neglect the harm that other sources of information, notably the internet, may cause. Unlike the internet, though, public television is regulated to an extent where over half of the day certain programming is disallowed from being aired. This is disregarding the fact that there has been no substantial evidence that profane, indecent, and obscene programming has in fact posed any harm to children. The Commision and its actions have also been

Currently the FCC limits broadcasters to the times at which they can and can not, or more accurately, should and should not, have programming containing profanities. Between the times of 6:00 am and 10:00 pm, the FCC regulates the use of profanities in broadcasters’ content. In contrast to the Commission's definition of profane speech, the FCC defines indecent material as one that “contains sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity”. Similar to its limitation on profane speech, the FCC has also limited the use of indecent programming to the time window outside of 6:00 am to 10:00 pm. Because of the similar restrictions the FCC has put on these two types of material, their relative content similarity (compared to obscenity), and the fact that they are both protected by the First Amendment, I have grouped them

I believe that in doing so, the Commission would better serve the public as it would reflect current sentiments. Not only that, but it would elevate the level of respectability of the Commision because it would show to the public that it is dedicated to changing with times, as opposed to staying archaic and antiquated like many laws, enforcement bodies, and regulations have the tendency to do. On obscene programming, it is my believe that the Commission should retain its stance because of the nature of it. A plan of action would be to gradually decrease the regulations and enforcement of on profane and indecent programming starting with the former. Eventually there should be no restrictions on profane and indecent speech, putting the decision to create and air such programming being in the broadcasters’ hands. Ultimately, in terms of what gets broadcasted, I don’t think much would change. The reason for this is that broadcasters don’t indiscriminately add profane and indecent speech into their airings. It’s a strategic process, and erring on the side of the highest level of appropriateness is usually the smartest move. But instead of leaving this responsibility to the FCC, broadcasters can use their best judgement to better serve their targeted audience. I believe that is important