EDITORIAL – House bill unprecedented, controversial

It happened more than a year ago but is still heavily referenced as a reason why the Federal… It happened more than a year ago but is still heavily referenced as a reason why the Federal Communications Commission should impose harsher penalties for indecency on radio and television broadcasts. Janet “Miss Jackson if you’re nasty” Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the 2004 Super Bowl cost the CBS network $550,000.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a bill authorizing unprecedented fines for indecency. The measure boosts the maximum fine from $32,500 to $500,000 for a company and from $11,000 to $500,000 for an individual entertainer. There was broad, bipartisan support for the bill, which passed 389-38, despite criticism that the penalties will stifle free speech and homogenize radio and TV broadcasts.

Supporters claim the fines will give broadcasters more incentive to clean up their programs and help assure parents that children won’t be exposed to inappropriate material. Opponents argue the fines by the FCC will lead to more self-censorship by broadcasters and entertainers unclear about the definition of “indecent.”

FCC rules and federal law define the obscene as material describing “sexual conduct in a patently offensive way” and lacking “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” Indecent material is not as offensive but still contains references to sex or excretions.

Several ABC affiliates cited the decision not to air the World War II drama “Saving Private Ryan” because of worries that violence and profanity would lead to fines, even though the movie had already aired on network TV.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., said, “We would put Big Brother in charge of deciding what is art and what is free speech. We would see self-censorship rise to new and undesirable heights.”

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who voted against the bill, said, “Parents are the best judges of what their children should see and hear.”

What happened to the announcement before a movie or television show aired that said it may contain scenes or material unsuitable for children?

The way-too-simple-to-be-a-real-solution solution is to no longer allow television and radio to be baby sitters and stand-in parents for impressionable children, who need parental instruction as much as or more than they need protection from media influences. And although Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., who introduced the bill, remarked, “Parents can rest easy,” we know this piece of legislation is not about the children.

If it were, then the FCC would announce that the money from increased fines would go to producing and promoting better programming on public television for children. FCC fines totaled $48,000 four years ago. Last year, indecent programming fines exceeded $7.7 million. Where does the money go?

This bill will do little more than drive consumers to pay more for entertainment. For example, Howard Stern, a regular FCC target, simply took his controversial talk radio show to Sirius.

His fans now pay to hear him. And now more families pay for HBO and other cable packages. If indecency is the crime, the FCC must want everyone to pay.