FCC's actions enforce public's good taste

To Talk of Many Things

The Federal Communications Commission has been exercising its influence more assiduously lately, largely in response to exotic escapades that found their way onto the public airwaves over this year. FCC-administered fines for indecent presentations over the airwaves are being threatened and used in response to outrage among the viewing public.

The relevant question now would be whether or not the FCC’s exercise of authority is unduly antagonistic toward freedom of expression in a society where that freedom is deeply cherished. If the commission were to aggressively fine broadcasting outlets in pursuit of public decency it would be in breach of free speech, but that does not appear to be the case.

It seems that in most of the indecency cases, the FCC seeks to penalize broadcasters who project explicit material onto the airwaves at the worst hours. These would be the hours of the evening in which young children are likely to be viewing with parents. It does not seem an unreasonable demand that more adult-oriented content be reserved for later hours at night when children are not likely to be viewing. Televised events such as football are meant for everyone to watch, so it should be obvious that certain content does not belong in them.

The public airwaves are licensed to broadcasters on the condition they keep the public interest in mind. It certainly can be said that cultivating decent sensibilities in children is a matter of public interest.

Parents work hard to do this, and it is helpful when broadcasters do their part by keeping their material civilized within the family-viewing hours. The stewards of the airwaves unquestionably have the freedom to broadcast what they choose, but with all freedom comes responsibility, and broadcasters should exercise responsibility by using proper discretion about what to show at what times.

If we grant the interest of preserving decent sensibilities in children is a concern of society at large, it follows that governmental power legitimately can be used to safeguard this interest within appropriate bounds. The regulatory authority to perform this task is within the mandate of the FCC under the law.

Therefore, it would seem that the effort to keep certain material out of family-viewing hours is harmonious with the regulatory authority over the airwaves and with the First Amendment.

The freedom of expression is crucial to a civil society, but no freedom can exist without proper limits. It is necessary to draw reasonable boundaries in accordance with civilized standards of public life in order to balance the needs of the family with the freedom of airwaves use. Material that would contaminate civil ecology should be moderately regulated so as to make it less likely that young children will be exposed to it. Reserving such material for later, more adult-oriented hours at night would preserve the right to broadcast the material while making it easier to keep it out of the eyesight of children.

One of the functions of government is to keep freedom from being stretched so far that it harms society, and it can be said that threatening the sensibilities of children is a societal harm. The political philosopher Edmund Burke astutely explained that government is designed to provide for human wants, and that one of those wants is "a sufficient restraint upon [men’s] passions."

In this country, the First Amendment provides an enormous amount of freedom of expression. It should not be a terrible burden for broadcasters to show basic respect for the needs of American families with children. Freedom of speech will survive the FCC’s measured actions.

Jonathan Kelly is a senior political science major.