After hearing a case regarding the Federal Communications Commission’s indecency rules, the Supreme Court appeared to be holding strong to outdated standards that have only become more stringent since the ’70s.
Lawyers representing Fox Television and ABC claimed the definition of “indecency” used by the FCC is arbitrary and inconsistent, citing that the use of profanities in some programs lead to fines, while other programs escaped similar slaps on the wrist.
Though some justices noted that children have easy access to public airwaves, and therefore need to be protected, it stands to reason that children in households with cable television could just as easily stumble upon a program that contains four-letter words on those stations, which are not regulated by the FCC. The responsibility for policing what shows children watch should lie with the parents, not with a government agency.
Broadcast television does not necessarily need to be held to a higher standard than the Internet and cable television programs; the networks themselves should determine what content they run, taking into account their audience. If the FCC’s powers to regulate television are diminished, swear words and nudity will not suddenly run rampant on broadcast channels.
They will continue to cater to their current viewers who choose to watch channels with a level of “decency” but will simply no longer have to incur unnecessary fines from the FCC.
Email Grano at
kgrano@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to opinion@media.ucla.edu.