http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/business/media/28fcc.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=justice%20agree%20on%20FCC%20rule%20on%20indecency&st=cse
On June, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Federal Communications Commission's polices baning nudities, expletives, and other indecent contents on brodcast television and radio violated the Constitution. The granting of a hearing in this case, FCC vs. Fox Television Stations, No. 10-1293, also goes back to the landmark 1978 ruling on indecency, FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation, which upheld the commission's finding of the comedian George Carlin's classic "Seven Dirty Words" monologue as indecent, and this cemented FCC's ability to regulate the public airwaves. The case, No. 10-1293, is an appeal by the FCC of a ruling in 2010 which said that the commission's policy against "fleeting expletives" and other indecencies was "unconstitutional vague". Some argue that the FCC have the right to ban expletives on televisions and radios in order to protect children and families from the exposure of indecencies, yet some argue that by doing so, the FCC violates free speech or due process clauses of the Constitution.
This raises the knowledge issues of ethics and language. Ethics askes us whether FCC is breaching our constitutional law or whether it is just protecting the public safety. Language refers to the cognitive faculty that enables humans to learn and use systems of complex commnuications, and this lead to to the question of how FCC and human society dicide which words are consider indecent or not.
Ethics is the moral principle that lets us determine whether the FCC has the rights to regulate our free speech or if it is right to protec us from any indecency that may cause some unscrupulous consequences and damages. Isn't it morally wrong for the government to control our freedom of speech as that is our right as citizens of America? With them regulating what we say on televisions and radios, doesn't that depreciate and restrain our human creative impulses? Yet, expletive matrials and indescency on brodcast TV's and radios can sometimes affect negatively toward people's minds, especially of young children. Is it appropriate to let young little Johnny to watch porn-like materials on TV or listen to radio shows like that of Howard Stern, who often talked about controversial and obscene, "mature" topics on his show, and he was also fined by FCC for $2.5 million due to indecent programming. So, isn't FCC right, to some extent, to monitor the contents brodcasted by TV and radio stations, in order to protect the mind of the comunity from any indecencies?
The human language is often based on visual and auditory stimuli but is also affected through our cultural and social interaction, and as a result, through periods of time, certain words become taboos in our society. This leads to organizations, like FCC, trying to regulate certain words from appearing on TVs and radios so that the masses won't be in contact with these words, which society deemed expletive. Yet even though FCC states that certain words cannot be said in brodcast medias, it does not assert that the ideas of those words cannot be suggested. For example, the F-word is one of the top words that FCC bans, but it is often suggested in many television shows. For example, the innocent TV sitcom, The Cosby Show, which is one of the most popular and biggest American show that many of us have watched during our childhood, has often suggest the idea of the F-word. We all know that when Cliff Huxtable holds his wife's, Claire Huxtable's, hands and walks together up the stairs to their bedroom that they are going to be doing what we think they're going to be doing. Meanwhile, the S-word is another taboo word, but as long as it is not mentioned, it's safe. So, if I say the word, "feces", which is a synonym to the S-word, and with the intention of meaning the S-word, am I still crossing the boundary? Because language shapes our thought, that's why when we hear these taboo words, we often think of indecency or vulgarity, but if it's only suggested and we do not hear any of these words mentioned, we then don't think it's that harmful.
This issue relates to a case, known as the Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell. Hustler Magazine had made a parody of Jerry Falwell, who was a fundamentalist Protestant minister, talking about his "first time". The court ruled in favor of Hustler Magazine after a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court stated that the First Amendment recognized the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions. Even if Hustler had offended and created eomtional stress on Falwell, what it had done is deemed with the law of our constitutional rights. Both these cases show the knowledge issue of ethics of our law stating that as Americans, we have the freedom to express our ideas and that no one, not even the government, should try to regulate our speech and expressions as that is our individual liberty.
This raises the knowledge issues of ethics and language. Ethics askes us whether FCC is breaching our constitutional law or whether it is just protecting the public safety. Language refers to the cognitive faculty that enables humans to learn and use systems of complex commnuications, and this lead to to the question of how FCC and human society dicide which words are consider indecent or not.
Ethics is the moral principle that lets us determine whether the FCC has the rights to regulate our free speech or if it is right to protec us from any indecency that may cause some unscrupulous consequences and damages. Isn't it morally wrong for the government to control our freedom of speech as that is our right as citizens of America? With them regulating what we say on televisions and radios, doesn't that depreciate and restrain our human creative impulses? Yet, expletive matrials and indescency on brodcast TV's and radios can sometimes affect negatively toward people's minds, especially of young children. Is it appropriate to let young little Johnny to watch porn-like materials on TV or listen to radio shows like that of Howard Stern, who often talked about controversial and obscene, "mature" topics on his show, and he was also fined by FCC for $2.5 million due to indecent programming. So, isn't FCC right, to some extent, to monitor the contents brodcasted by TV and radio stations, in order to protect the mind of the comunity from any indecencies?
The human language is often based on visual and auditory stimuli but is also affected through our cultural and social interaction, and as a result, through periods of time, certain words become taboos in our society. This leads to organizations, like FCC, trying to regulate certain words from appearing on TVs and radios so that the masses won't be in contact with these words, which society deemed expletive. Yet even though FCC states that certain words cannot be said in brodcast medias, it does not assert that the ideas of those words cannot be suggested. For example, the F-word is one of the top words that FCC bans, but it is often suggested in many television shows. For example, the innocent TV sitcom, The Cosby Show, which is one of the most popular and biggest American show that many of us have watched during our childhood, has often suggest the idea of the F-word. We all know that when Cliff Huxtable holds his wife's, Claire Huxtable's, hands and walks together up the stairs to their bedroom that they are going to be doing what we think they're going to be doing. Meanwhile, the S-word is another taboo word, but as long as it is not mentioned, it's safe. So, if I say the word, "feces", which is a synonym to the S-word, and with the intention of meaning the S-word, am I still crossing the boundary? Because language shapes our thought, that's why when we hear these taboo words, we often think of indecency or vulgarity, but if it's only suggested and we do not hear any of these words mentioned, we then don't think it's that harmful.
This issue relates to a case, known as the Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell. Hustler Magazine had made a parody of Jerry Falwell, who was a fundamentalist Protestant minister, talking about his "first time". The court ruled in favor of Hustler Magazine after a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court stated that the First Amendment recognized the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions. Even if Hustler had offended and created eomtional stress on Falwell, what it had done is deemed with the law of our constitutional rights. Both these cases show the knowledge issue of ethics of our law stating that as Americans, we have the freedom to express our ideas and that no one, not even the government, should try to regulate our speech and expressions as that is our individual liberty.
This topic seems to be quite interesting as it questions how people should identify what is “correct” for children to be educated in a good manner. I personally disagree on this statement that the FCC should be regulating the banning all these instances of television shows or radio shows. Although these words and themes may be inappropriate for young children but when exactly is that age reached where children are exposed to these type of themes. It is unlikely for someone to live in society where these themes will be hidden forever and society will be unknown of these terms and themes; one day these children will find out. Therefore, I believe that these types of programs should be categorized such that they will air at a later time when all the “young” children have gone to bed. If the FCC continues ot ban all these forms of media then does that mean that these themes will disappear and keep our children safe? No, even if these themes are completely erased from our society, as long as humans have curiosity to learn and experience new things, these themes will eventually be discovered and put into wide use. While it was explained how certain words become taboo in our society it seems that the cultural aspect of it wasn’t mentionde. In certain cultures, some concepts and words are considered normal whilst in other cultures it is not. I found that the article itself was pretty detailed and easy to understand but I think that it would help if links were present to help the reader. Even though the major topic of what is considered indecent mentioned, there is no personal opinion mentioned about the topic.
ReplyDeleteI think this topic is one that is very relatable and interesting to read about because we've all had personal experiences with this. An everyday issue that is related to your topic is the banning of certain words in school. In elementary school, using inappropriate words is a major offense and often results in pretty heavy consequences like being confined to the corner or staying in during break time. However, as we grow older, the consequences seem to become diminutive. As we are in high school, teachers often overlook our use of inappropriate language or just give us verbal warnings about using particular words.
ReplyDeleteSony raises a good point about the appropriate age for exposure to explicit language and material. There is no rigid rule about when it is appropriate to lighten the punishment for using swear words in school, but everyone seems to follow the trend of deeming older people using those words as more acceptable than when younger people use the words. However, the age issue is not the only debatable thing. There is also the issue of what kind of language is appropriate in various circumstances and situations. Which situations should be defined as formal and which situations as casual? How thin is the line between casual and formal? And lastly, is there even a line between formal and casual or is it a spectrum? No matter how these things are defined, people are going to have trouble coming to a consensus, as the way of defining these situations would ultimately be arbitrary and based on agreement.