Pinker on Obscenity
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:13 PM

Two weeks ago Vice Squad was in attendance when Steven Pinker came to town to talk about his new book, The Stuff of Thought. The vice angle concerned cursing, and now Pinker has a related essay in The New Republic -- thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the pointer. The essay is bookended by a discussion of the curse word that Bono blurted out in a live television broadcast in 2003. Pinker is no fan of the FCC's indecency controls that put broadcasters at risk of huge fines from curse words going out over the airwaves -- which is not to say that speakers and writers should not economize on their use of swearing.

But why is it that words related to sex are among those that have become curses? Part of the answer, according to Pinker, is that traditionally sex is often more painful than joyful:

Sex has high stakes, including exploitation, disease, illegitimacy, incest, jealousy, spousal abuse, cuckoldry, desertion, feuding, child abuse, and rape. These hazards have been around for a long time and have left their mark on our customs and our emotions. Thoughts about sex are likely to be fraught, and not entertained lightly.

Here's an 18-minute sample of Pinker from the indispensable TED Talks series.

Labels: FCC, indecency

 
FCC Extends Chicago Cubs Playoff Run....
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 8:25 AM

...by 6.4 seconds, at least for those listening on radio. In the "Inside Media" column by Teddy Greenstein in today's Chicago Tribune comes this short notice:

WGN-AM 720 has instituted a 6.4-second profanity delay for its Cubs broadcasts. So if you want to listen to the game while at Wrigley Field or prefer the radio team of Pat Hughes and Ron Santo while watching at home, you're out of luck. A WGN spokesman said not instituting the profanity delay would have posed a liability risk.

I realize that the Cubs tradition is to drive their fans to muttering the occasional imprecation, but do we really need this? I have listened to countless hours of Pat and Ron over the years, and do not recall ever hearing any profanity (though I would not be surprised if the odd curse slipped out). Six-point-four seconds might not sound like a lot, but this delay will essentially eliminate, as the notice suggests, listening to the radio broadcast while at the ballpark or watching on TV; I believe, in fact, that the delay will render listening in those circumstances to be even more nightmarish than the Cubs's play.

The FCC claims that obscenity complaints can be denied if the profanity, within the "overall context of the programming," does not rise to the level of indecency, but it is not clear if Cub futility makes a finding of indecency more or less likely.

Maybe the delay can be removed in the last few innings? Many losses by the North Siders are only assured after 10PM, and at that time, indecent (but not obscene) broadcasting is safe from FCC sanction.

Labels: broadcast, FCC, indecency, obscenity

 
Leaving No Channel Uncensored
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:37 PM

Yesterday the FCC said that Saving Private Ryan was hunky dory, even before 10PM. But what if they had supported the many complainants and decided the other way? Then, prime time airing of Saving Private Ryan (or other movies with 'similar' amounts of profanity) would be restricted to satellite or cable stations.

But Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska doesn't think that there should be different standards for satellite or cable stations, even though folks have to do more than simply own a TV set to see programming offered over cable or satellite. If he has his way, prime time, even on cable, will be pure as the driven Alaskan snow. And as inviting, too.

The linked story was brought to my attention by co-blogger and primo research assistant Ryan Monarch. Ryan is off to Los Angeles later this week, to -- I am not making this up -- appear on a game show. Good luck, Ryan!

Labels: FCC, indecency, obscenity

 
TV Czars: Saving Private Ryan Not Indecent!
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:42 PM

And we had to watch "Return to Mayberry". Remember how on Veteran's Day a bunch of ABC affiliates refused to air Saving Private Ryan, fearing FCC fines for the violence and profanity in the film? Turns out that they needn't have worried. The Official National Movie Reviewer has now spoken:

"This film is a critically acclaimed artwork that tells a gritty story — one of bloody battles and supreme heroism," FCC chairman Michael Powell said in a statement. "The horror of war and the enormous personal sacrifice it draws on cannot be painted in airy pastels."

Less gritty stories are still fair game for FCC fines, however -- at least if they have dirty language: "...the FCC said its indecency and profanity guidelines were not applicable to violent programming."

Labels: FCC, indecency, obscenity

 
Pre-Empting the FCC...
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:13 PM

...with a suspension and multiple apologies. In Milwaukee on Thursday Mike McGee, a talk radio host, used unapproved language -- aimed at state legislators -- on the air. A day later, McGee was off the air, thanks to a suspension by station owner Jerrel Jones. Was Jones offended by McGee's statement? I don't know, but apparently, it wasn't any personal affront that drove the suspension. Nor has the FCC been deluged with offended listeners. It appears it took media publicity (not the broadcast itself) to stir up the defenders of purity:

While he understands McGee uttered the offensive word in the heat of the moment, "the bottom line is, I'm not going to risk my FCC involvement," Jones said, referring to his Federal Communications Commission broadcast license. "I've had it now for 35 years. I'm walking on eggshells with the FCC . . . I know the rules."

The FCC bans obscene language and restricts use of indecent language from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. to protect children who might be listening. An FCC spokeswoman said Friday that the agency had not received any complaints against McGee or WNOV [the station] about his Thursday remark.

Jones said, however, that he had been deluged with complaint calls Friday, prompted by a report in the Journal Sentinel. Jones offered an apology to listeners of McGee's show and pledged there would be no repeat of such language.

Labels: FCC, indecency, obscenity

 
Viacom Settles FCC Indecency Investigations...
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 8:30 PM

...for a cool $3.5 million. This settlement does not include the Super Bowl kerfuffle, but does cover investigations into Howard Stern and the "shock jock duo" Opie and Anthony. The settlement has other terms, of course, including imposing upon Viacom the duty "to train its broadcasters and employees about indecency laws." Of what will this training consist? Perhaps something like, "The FCC can't tell you in advance what constitutes indecency, but if some dude complains about what you broadcast, then the FCC might fine you a whole lot."

Labels: FCC, indecency

 
Ryan Redux
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:36 PM

Last week we mentioned that some ABC affiliates were shying away from airing "Saving Private Ryan," due to the possibility of facing FCC fines for excessive violence and profanity. Yesterday, Chicago Tribune writer (and blogger) Eric Zorn's column provided more information: 66 affiliates decided against broadcasting SPR. Further, their reticence was not an obvious case of overreaction, because the FCC's post-Bono clarification made it possible that almost any use of sufficiently foul language, irrespective of context, might generate a fine. Of course, FCC enforcement is complaint driven, and who would complain about SPR? Zorn had intended to file an ironic complaint, but, well...:

The American Family Association of Tupelo, Miss., had beaten me to the complaint desk. Leaders of the Christian-right group sent out an "action alert" last Friday urging supporters to e-mail specific (and non-ironic!) objections about "Saving Private Ryan" to the FCC in a form letter that included the transcript of two raw portions of dialogue.

A spokeswoman for the commission's enforcement bureau said Monday that the bureau has so far received comments on "Saving Private Ryan" numbering "in the thousands."

Labels: FCC, indecency

 
Trib on Vice
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 2:14 PM

Sorry for the blogging lapse! Alas, I am leaving town shortly, if all goes well, so I am afraid that blogging will be in the light-to-non-existent range for a few days.

But first, some stories from today's Chicago Tribune (registration required):

(1) FCC Does In Private Ryan: It is a potential violation of FCC guidelines to air the violence and profanity in the film, "Saving Private Ryan," before 10 PM. The movie is slated to be shown tonight on ABC, in conjunction with Veteran's Day. But some ABC affiliates will not be broadcasting SPR, to avoid the risk of fines. They asked the FCC to clear the film in advance (i.e., to promise no fines for broadcasting it), but the FCC wouldn't take such a radical step -- despite the fact that the movie has been aired, uncut, in 2000 and in 2001, without any fines, though someone was moved to file a complaint. Vice Squad has repeatedly indicated that the "respond after the fact to complaints" approach of the FCC is poor public policy; I am shocked that the FCC hasn't altered its methods accordingly. Incidentally, it looks like lucky viewers in Des Moines, Sioux City, and Lincoln (NE) will get to see "a music program and the TV movie 'Return to Mayberry.'" Come to think of it, Return to Mayberry is a pretty good description of the FCC's renewed vigilance.

(2) NASCAR has announced that it will begin to accept sponsorships from hard-liquor companies. Turns out that NASCAR got its start, sort of, thanks to the liquor trade. Much of the impetus to "soup-up" regular cars came from a desire to outrun anti-moonshine agents.

(3) A 23-year veteran of the Chicago Police Department is now facing 10 or more years in prison, plus a slew of asset forfeitures, after being found guilty yesterday of charges related to the theft of cocaine from a police evidence warehouse. The officer's explanation for his surprising wealth was that it came from gambling winnings, but casino records didn't back that up.

(4) In a story from November 7, the Coast Guard announced that its cocaine haul for the fiscal year 2003/04 amounted to more than 37 tons. It isn't clear how much of that was seized from the evidence warehouse in Chicago.

(5) "Secret research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that second-hand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades, according to an online article being published Thursday by The Lancet, a British medical journal."

(6) Philip Morris is also arguing before the Illinois Supreme Court to try to get that little matter of a $10.1 billion judgment against it thrown out. I guess they just picked a lawyer at random from the yellow pages, but surprisingly, it turned out to be former Illinois governor James Thompson.

Labels: alcohol, driving, FCC, Illinois, indecency, litigation, tobacco

 
Vicewire 10/12/2004
- posted by Ryan @ 10:53 PM

1) Congress is attempting to push across increased fines for indecency. On related notes, Fox is looking at fines for indecency following a "whipped cream incident" on the television show "Married by America". Also, Howard Stern is moving to satellite radio in 2006.

2) Israel has found a novel solution for easing trauma among its soldiers: marijuana.

3) A 17-year-old may be facing 30 days in jail after using profanity around a teacher.

Labels: indecency, marijuana, teens, Vicewire

 
Televised Music Videos Targeted in India
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:45 PM

And no, not for being derivative and dull. It's the obscenity, don't you know.

In the past, I have danced around the position that some obscenity control over broadcast television and radio is not clearly undesirable (did that make sense?), even as I object to the large ex post fines levied on the likes of CBS and Howard Stern in the absence of a clear standard.

Labels: indecency, India, obscenity

 
Vicewire, 9/4/2004
- posted by Ryan @ 8:26 PM

1) Here is an article from the Washington Post about the stepping up of enforcement on Labor Day weekend drunk driving by using checkpoints.

2) Also from the Post is a story on the "DWI King" and his remarkable record at tracking down DWI offenders.

3) CBS faces a $550,000 indecency fine for the Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction", the largest fine ever handed down by the Federal Communications Commission.

4) An Alabama obstetrician has started "Mothers Against Meth", a group to fight growing methamphetamine use across Appalachia. She also cites the increased effectiveness she has found in religious drug treatment centers, as opposed to secular ones.

5) Bad news for narcotic police: "super" coca plants that "are bigger, faster-growing, and produce more of the compund that gives cocaine its kick" may be appearing in Colombia. It is also more resistant to herbicide, if it exists, that is. [The super coca was covered last week by D'Alliance and others -- JL.] An interview with drug czar John Walters is cited where he notes that the price of cocaine is remainging constant, meaning that efforts to control tbe supply from Colombia seem to be failing. The AP story on the interview is here. Walters insists on "staying the course" on Operation Colombia and thanks narcotics agents: "You are making lives better for people who you will never meet."

Labels: alcohol, driving, drugs, FCC, indecency, Vicewire

 
Cheney Banned From Senate Library?
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 5:14 PM

Well, I could be getting confused here. Seems that our nation's Vice President hurled an obscenity in the direction of Sen. Pat Leahy on the Senate floor. The incident was reported widely (for example, by Aljazeera), but the Washington Post has raised some hackles by printing the precise quote. Here's the Washington Post editor explaining the decision not to sugar-coat the Veep's language.

In what may or may not be an unrelated story, Fredric Alan Maxwell, an established author, is suing the Ann Arbor public library after it banned him for one year for swearing:

Maxwell's conflict with the library began Dec. 8 when an employee at the main branch complained that he had used a profanity.

His expulsion came Dec. 30 after a second obscenity incident.

"In a subdued library voice with no children around, the plaintiff expressed his opinion of a certain inept library employee and inefficient library procedure" with an obscenity, Maxwell said in the suit.

Maxwell said he returned to his work, but three police officers later showed up and told him to leave or face arrest. He said the officers handed him a form saying he was banned from the main library for a year.

Labels: indecency, obscenity

 
Censoring Cable Television
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 12:39 PM

Though I don't object on principle to some obscenity regulation on broadcast TV and radio (even as I deplore the now large fines and the system of imposing them), the further one gets from broadcast, the less the rationale for government controls. Cable and satellite television involve (just through the monthly bills) a degree of control by the subscriber that goes beyond simple possession of a receiver. But it looks as if the US government will not be satisfied with driving Howard Stern to satellite radio. Professor Bainbridge has details.

Labels: FCC, indecency, obscenity

 
The One Dipstick Standard
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 2:29 PM

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal included a front page article entitled "One Man's Campaign To Rid Radio of Smut Is Finally Paying Off." The man is question is David Smith, a fellow Chicagoan. His bete noire, it seems, is the Chicago-based disc jockey Erich "Mancow" Muller. According to the WSJ article, "Since 1999, Mr. Smith has sent the FCC more than 70 complaints about Mancow's humor. They have resulted in $42,000 in fines that Mr. Muller's employer insists he [Mancow Muller] pay....Half of them [the complaints] are still pending."

Somehow I have managed to miss Mancow's broadcasts during my five and a half years in Chicago. From the descriptions I have seen and heard, however, I doubt I would be a fan. Nevertheless, I find this to be a perverse method of regulating broadcast radio -- even granting that some regulation is requisite. It is what one of my co-bloggers refers to (actually, I am paraphrasing) as the "one dipstick standard." By lodging sufficient complaints, any one guy, in this case Mr. Smith, can determine the sort of discourse that everyone is allowed to hear on broadcast radio.

For years, in both the US and the UK, the standard for whether a book could be suppressed as obscene was whether the book tended to "deprave and corrupt" those whose minds were vulnerable to such influences. One significant problem with this standard is that it makes the most vulnerable mind the arbiter of the availability of literature to all potential readers, vulnerable or not. As the renowned American judge Learned Hand put it in a 1913 obscenity case, the "deprave and corrupt" test would "reduce our treatment of sex to the standard of a child's library...." But now we have our broadcast media limited to the level recorded by the most sensitive and vocal dipstick.

Labels: FCC, indecency

 
Rush Limbaugh Censored in Indianapolis
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 1:41 PM

It's true: "an Indianapolis radio station pre-empted words like 'urinate,' 'damn' and 'orgy' from going out over the air during a recent broadcast of Rush Limbaugh's talk show." Masterpiece Theater has also upped its bowdlerizing of episodes that are rebroadcast in the good ol' USA. Isn't it about time that significant resources were put into making sure that mispronunciations of "parachute" (another real example) don't go out over the airwaves of our nation?

These cases come to us from this story (registration required) in yesterday's New York Times. The reason for the self-censorship is the enhanced fear of sanctions stemming from FCC actions against Howard Stern and others and the higher fines made available through Congressional actions. (Here's the most recent Vice Squad post relating to Mr. Stern.)

Labels: FCC, indecency

 
Stern Fines Chill Glass
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:36 PM

Just two days ago, while musing on appropriate regulation of indecent material over broadcast radio and television, I quoted one encomium of Howard Stern. Today's New York Times Magazine offers a second one (registration required), this time by National Public Radio host Ira Glass. Here's Ira on Howard: "...Stern has invented a way of being on the air that uses the medium better than nearly anyone. He's more honest, more emotionally present, more interesting, more wide-ranging in his opinions than any host on public radio. Also, he's a fantastic interviewer. He's truly funny. And his staff on the air is cheerfully inclusive of every kind of person: black, white, dwarf, stutterer, drunk and supposed gay. What public radio show has that kind of diversity?"

More importantly with respect to indecency regulation, Glass notes a whole litany of recent broadcasts on his (Glass's) NPR show, "This American Life," that conceivably could result in mega-fines from the FCC -- if it applied the same standards that it applied to Stern. But it seems that Glass doesn't really expect those standards to be applied: "Because the whole process is driven by audience complaints, enforcement is arbitrary by design. Political expediency also seems to play a role. Stern has pointed out how a recent ''Oprah'' featured virtually the same words he uses but drew no fine. He urged his listeners to file complaints, to test whether the F.C.C. will penalize only those it sees as vulnerable. Agency aides told The Hollywood Reporter that Oprah Winfrey was probably untouchable."

When I brought up indecency regulation two days ago, and my ambivalence towards it, I failed to mention that I believe that the large fines assessed against Howard Stern and others are unjust. Among other shortcomings, these fines do not satisfy the usual legal requirement of notice: how can broadcasters, from Howard to Oprah to Ira, know in advance what will be subject to a fine, if the fines are not based on what is said or shown but rather on whether a critical mass of complaints is received?

Labels: broadcast, FCC, indecency

 
Indecency Regulation By the FCC
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 5:32 PM

The Nation has a fine article this week looking at the post-Super Bowl actions of the FCC. The article includes some material on the regulation of indecency and obscenity, borrowed from a "Parents' Place" website maintained by the FCC. According to the FCC site, obscene material cannot be broadcast on radio or TV, indecent (but not obscene) material cannot be broadcast between 6AM and 10PM (the precise times being the result of an FCC rule) and profane speech is verboten during the same hours.

The article in The Nation takes issue with the heightened obscenity enforcement by the FCC. I haven't had too much to say about this issue in the past because I don't really know where I stand, and I know that some of my co-bloggers disagree with my tentative position. (I guess that all my positions are tentative, but this one is "more tentative!") What is that tentative position...? ..., well, that I do not have a principled objection to some controls over indecent and profane material over "daytime" radio or TV broadcasts. (I probably do have a principled objection to such controls over cable or satellite or other forms of dissemination that show the receiver has taken some step beyond the purchase of a TV or radio to access programming.) Radios and television are ubiquitous in the US, and it is a good thing, too. Kids will frequently be exposed to radio and TV broadcasts, and probably often without adult supervision, and I think it is probably good that they don't require adult supervision. I also think that there is much to be said for channel or dial surfing, for sampling from stations with which you are not already familiar. Now, do I think that kids would be harmed by being exposed to indecent material? No. But some parents might disagree, and I think that it might be OK to order our world in such a way that they can shield their kids from indecency without turning the kids into hermits. I am not endorsing any specific controls over broadcast indecency, but right now I just don't feel as if all such controls are obviously unwarranted.

Incidentally, I don't own a television, and my radio listening does not tend towards Howard Stern. But I might reconsider on Howard, based on these observations from The Nation article, which was written by Jeff Jarvis:

"Let me tell you why I am such a Howard Stern fan. Until I reviewed his show for TV Guide, I had heard the same snippets, quotes and characterizations you had. I thought he was best taken in small doses. But after listening to him for a few weeks, I discovered that, to the contrary, he is best taken in large doses. For then you discover that Stern is charming, likable, decent, funny, a talented entertainer, a great interviewer, and--more than anything--honest.

Stern is an antidote to all the overpackaged, smiley, phony, condescending pap of personality in American media and entertainment. In an age of predictable news (shouldn't news be just the opposite?) and political correctness and numbing national rhetoric, Stern cuts through the crap and says what he thinks--and what many of us think. And that is incredibly refreshing. No, it's liberating."

Labels: broadcast, FCC, indecency, teens

 
Outsourcing John Ashcroft and Michael Powell?
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 5:38 PM

A friend of Vice Squad sends along this BBC report on a technological solution to that bothersome problem of smutty DVDs:

"American cinephiles will soon be able to enjoy their movies without sex, violence, swearing - indeed, without any of the interesting bits.

Wal-Mart, the country's mightiest retailer, is preparing to ship a $79 DVD player that automatically strips out potentially offensive content.

The gadget, made by French-owned RCA, aims to tap into mounting concern in the US about media standards."

And though I have adopted a lighthearted tone for this story, I am all in favor of such technological filtering devices -- as long as they remain voluntary. (Here's an earlier Vice Squad post on the generally ignored V-chip, which provides similar filtering for TV shows.)

Labels: indecency, obscenity

 
George Carlin on Obscenity
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 8:48 PM

The comedian George Carlin has a place in the history of regulation of obscenity thanks to his monologue "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television." A daytime radio broadcast of this monologue led to a US Supreme Court case, FCC v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), the decision in which cleared the way for FCC regulation of indecent though not necessarily obscene material in broadcasting -- a rather timely topic, of course. Carlin was interviewed in Salon recently; here's a brief excerpt:

"I have never seen any sort of study or even an informal body of opinion that thinks these words alone are somehow morally corrupting, that the words do any damage. What they do in many cases is they have a potential of embarrassing the parents because they know they don't want their kids to say them in front of the neighbors. I don't know that there's ever been any evidence shown that that father in the car who reported the "Seven Dirty Words" -- by the way, that name was what the L.A. Times called it, I never used the word "dirty," I called it "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" and I didn't like them called dirty because that was my argument: that they weren't. But anyway, they are now. So that father and that son sat there. I believe he belonged to something called Morals in Media. They didn't turn that off. They weren't appalled. They weren't shocked into turning the radio off or changing the station. He let the child listen, and he listened, and my assumption is that neither of the two were morally corrupted or injured in any way by this experience. They were actually exposed to the words and what damage did they do?"

Labels: FCC, indecency, litigation, obscenity, Supreme Court

 
Legislation Stemming From Moral Panics
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 5:40 PM

One of my fears about the sensationalism of some vices is that it will lead to misguided legislative "solutions" that will haunt us for years -- thus my concern with the NY Times Magazine article on sex slavery in America that I found to be well over-the-top. Today in Slate is a reminder of one previous legislative solution to the problem of television programming that is inappropriate for children, though accessible by them. The imposed solution is the V-chip, which for some years has been required on new TVs sold in the US. A V-chip is a device that allows parents to automatically exclude adult-themed programming from being shown on the TV.

As by now these chips are everywhere, no doubt the loyal Vice Squad reader has substantial experience in activating V-chips. Oh, except that the vast majority of people (and the vast majority of families with kids) don't actually seem to use their V-chip, according to the linked Slate article, even when the parents do monitor their kids' TV viewing. The good news is that the chips are not expensive and dormant chips are inoffensive, although I am sure one could spin some sort of mad authoritarian tale of V-chip-enabled government censorship. But not all such fixes to moral panics are equally likely to remain benign.

Labels: FCC, indecency