Christensen: Airwave values best not chosen by FCC

The time to stand up for vulgarity is now. That’s right — for vulgarity, not against… The time to stand up for vulgarity is now. That’s right — for vulgarity, not against it.

Back in July, a federal appeals court struck down a Federal Communications Commission policy on indecency, according to The New York Times. New York’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals said that regulations against certain expletives on radio and TV violated the First Amendment because they were “vague and could inhibit free speech.”

The FCC’s list of obscene words read like middle school graffiti on a bathroom stall. Piss, asshole, tit, goddamn and shit or bullshit could not be said at any time. Neither could the c- or f-words. Ass, however, could be said during the safe harbor period between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. — perhaps because the term conveys less specific, less disgusting images than related words like asshole.

The FCC’s primary reason for imposing the regulations was to protect children. It’s doubtful that the regulations will go away — the decision is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Although the moral implications behind censorship are valid, the indecency policy was always confusing and out of touch with a culture in which certain expletives are growing more and more socially acceptable.

The FCC stipulated that one couldn’t say bastard before 10 or after 6, but bitch is fair game at any time — because heaven knows it’s just wrong to suggest a man was born out of wedlock, but it’s okay to compare a woman to a dog in heat.

In 1973, the Miller v. California Supreme Court case established the Miller test for deciding what material is considered obscene and is therefore unprotected by the First Amendment. The FCC follows these principles in determining which words are OK and which are prohibited. The Miller test involves three criteria for material to be considered obscene: It must violate community standards for the “average person,” have no serious value and appeal exclusively to prurient interests. Describing something as prurient indicates that it implies a morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex.

With the Miller test as a basis, the FCC decided that piss and shit are too offensive for the human ear but cock, prick and pussy are acceptable during the safe harbor time period. Tit is absolutely off limits — because even though everyone is down with vulgar penis talk, using slang to describe nipples is just wrong. S you can forget about cute little phrases such as “tit-for-tat” and mentioning that endearing woodland creature, the titmouse.

Seriously though, the FCC isn’t indicating that it is socially unacceptable to talk about the body, it’s just monitoring the language which broadcasters can use. Like a prudish little girl who hates the way “panties” sounds, the organization wrinkles its nose at some words while expressing indifference toward others.

If one of the criteria constituting obscenity is a violation of community standards, why are fag, faggot and dyke permissible during the safe harbor period? As a woman, I can’t really say I’m particularly offended by someone saying “tit” instead of “nipple.” Slurs, however, are offensive and really don’t offer any “serious value” to the airwaves. Judging from the uproar springing from Mel Gibson’s use of the n-word, slurs are offensive to the “average” American. Yet the FCC regulations neglected to mention racial slurs -— the n-word is not categorized as either obscene or indecent.

What the FCC censorship boils down to is a system built upon faulty definitions. Material is considered indecent when it contains “patently offensive sexual and excretory references.” But ordinary words can reference gross and unpleasant things too. Only 13 words make the FCC’s lists. Surely the English language contains a multitude of sexually offensive or excretory references. If the FCC is going to censor, it has to do better than that.

The only way the FCC could logically regulate what is said over the airwaves would be by creating some sort of ultimatum and classifying all offensive words as off limits. This is impossible. The court accurately evaluated that the FCC’s list is constitutionally vague and that the regulations violate standards of protective speech. Putting the constitutional right to free speech aside for a moment, it’s too difficult to determine which words are offensive to the American community as a whole. Radio listeners and television viewers are likely to be offended whether they hear a curse word or not. Not being able to say a certain word when expressing an opinion will not stop someone from saying something controversial. Controversy is the basis of entertainment.

The other option for the FCC would be to open the airwaves completely and do away with censorship altogether, relying on broadcasters’ good sense when it comes to cursing, racial epithets or slurs. The FCC strengthened censorship requirements after Janet Jackson bared tit (I said it) and celebrities such as Cher and Paris Hilton used expletives during award shows.

It’s obvious that broadcasters won’t always show good sense, but the community might — why not let the viewers make a stir when their personal standards are violated? By letting the community make its own criteria for offensiveness rather than setting standards for them, the FCC would save itself from opening a twisted can of worms. The FCC should do less and trust people to turn off their own television sets.