FCC right to fine Stern for Blumpkins, other such obscenities

There has been a lot of debate, recently, about Howard Stern and the Federal Communications… There has been a lot of debate, recently, about Howard Stern and the Federal Communications Commission. Desiring to finally have some retort other than “I hate Howard Stern; his show is disgusting and degrading,” I did a little research with the help of my favorite Internet search engine.

Despite my distaste for Stern, I was at first skeptical of the FCC’s attempts to fine him. I’ve read “1984” and “Fahrenheit 451,” and I’ve taken the authors’ message to heart: Be wary of censorship. I am vocal about my anger at book banning and the like. I am, after all, benefiting from free speech rights every time I write a column.

That said, after a few hours of following the historic development of obscenity laws, I believe that the FCC was fully justified in fining Stern.

FCC uses the three-prong identification system handed down by a court in 1973, in Miller vs. California. This landmark case not only concluded that the Constitution does not protect obscene speech, but it also laid out specific guidelines by which the law can identify obscenity. Under this system, material is classified as obscene if it meets these three guidelines:

An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law. And the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

These guidelines are available for anyone to see them online at the FCC Web site. Even if Stern was blissfully oblivious of the law, ignorance is not an acceptable legal defense.

But I am far more inclined to believe that Stern, who once referred to himself as being “crucified by the FCC,” was well aware of the law and simply flouted it with his material. And now, when the government calls him on his bad behavior and rampant violations of existing laws, he behaves like a spoiled 6-year-old.

Look at poor, little me. The big, bad government is picking on me, and it isn’t fair!

And the knee-jerk public reaction is sympathy for Stern and fear of the FCC. It’s all too tempting to buy into paranoid propaganda, and believe that the FCC’s unofficial slogan is “First Howard Stern, then The World!”

Maybe it’s just my overwhelming optimism, but I’m hard pressed to believe that just because the FCC fines a couple of disgusting radio talk show hosts and a couple of out-of-line celebrities, the world is going to descend into a “1984”-style dystopia.

Anyone who was paying attention to the law mentioned above would realize that it protects against a censorship hell. The law states that, in order to be ruled as obscene, “the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value,”

This means that J.D. Salinger, Andy Warhol, Al Franken and Charles Darwin are safe.

The best argument that could be made for Stern is that his show has political value. But I’ve seen the transcripts of the shows in question — and you can, too, on thesmokinggun.com — and there is no chance that a discussion of “blumpkins” or about about anal sex with Paris Hilton can qualify.

The level of fines for broadcasting obscene material was originally set back in 1934, in the Communications Act. Back in the day, the fines for obscenity topped off at $10,000. But I think we can all agree that $10,000 had a lot more spending power then.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 reinforced the idea behind the fine. This act, however, did not account for the dramatic increase in celebrity and broadcasting company income. Only recently did the FCC raise the fine maximum to a whopping $500,000.

Ten thousand dollars, or even $27,000, is not enough to hurt celebrities and broadcasting companies. It has no real impact; it is a small enough amount that it can be ignored or justified. Such small fines don’t even make it worth the FCC’s time, money and energy investment in the process.

Howard Stern violated the law. The legal details of violation and fining were available for him, and he ignored them. It’s only fair that he be punished.

The FCC did not mandate that the broadcasting companies drop Stern. Fines were threatened, and the companies decided that it was in their best interest to stop broadcasting his smut.

The FCC’s only mistake is in not enforcing this sooner. Enforcement must be swift and complete. All violators must be fined for the sake of justice and fairness.

You, too, can take advantage of your freedom of speech. E-mail Ginger McCall at gpm5@pitt.edu.