So you thought the FCC's crackdown on the deliciously vague violation of 'indecency' on broadcast airwaves was over the top?
It could get worse.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chair of the powerful House Judiciary Committee, wants to criminalize so-called indecency.
Instead of being in violation of federal regulations and subject to a fine, Sensenbrenner would turn indecency (however that's defined... if it's defined) into a criminal offense and subject possibly to jail time.
The other change is that the target of big government's wrath would not be radio and TV stations but the actual people who perpetrated the 'indecency.' Thus, stations would no longer be liable for what their invited guests do or say.
Sensenbrenner encouraged cable operators to do more to promote ways that parents can block unsavory programming they do not want and said that "The first thing we need is education has got to get better."
He added, "You can't expect the government to replace parental responsibility," which is exactly what his proposal purports to do.
It is not yet clear if Sensenbrenner wants criminal penalties to include jail time; it's still vague at this point.
In fact, the 'decency' itself, as a legal concept, is very vague. Too vague. I'd love to see how the criminalization of 'broadcast indecency' would stand up in court.
Or perhaps it's being left vague for quite intentional reasons. It's worth noting that Sensenbrenner made these intimidating comments before the National Cable & Telecommunications Association annual convention.
The main problem with this atrocity is that it gives far too much authority to limit freedom of speech to those in power.
When I was in Guinea, a man was thrown in jail for naming his dog after the head of state. In Zimbabwe (and other countries), it's a crime to insult the president. Imagine how many anti-Clinton folks could've been imprisoned in the 90s for that. An opposition activist was thrown in jail in Zimbabwe late last year for calling the country's strongman Robert Mugabe 'thick headed' and another met the same fate for correctly referring to Mugabe as a 'dictator.'
How do you define obscenity? Or do you define it?
If you define it, then freedom of speech is dependent on whoever's in power (and is in a position to define the crime). Who's to say it won't be defined with a Mugabe-esque interpretation?
If you don't define it, then it's horrifically vague and subject to the whim of whoever's in power (and in a position to prosecute whoever they feel like)
Today, 'obscenity' could be "Bush is Hitler."
Tommorrow, 'obscenity' could just as easily become "illegal immigration is a bad idea."
It's truly a Pandora's Box.
Some will dismiss this is the typical whinings of liberals and ACLU-types. The fact of the matter is that the 'politically incorrect' have as much to worry about this bill as anyone else. What happens if liberals get in power and decide to say that 'political incorrectness' constitutes obscenity?
It is interesting that conservatives usually reject the concept that the airwaves are public property but accept this concept for the purpose of regulating something they don't like. They'd never try to get away with this for newspapers.
I think Howard Stern is a horse's rear end. My brother loves him. My solution and the solution of most 'freedom loving people' [(c) 2002 G.W.Bush] is to ignore something that we know we dislike. Sensenbrenner's solution is to impose his dislike on every American.
Do you want politicians to tell you what you can and can't watch?
Update: Even in the Guinea, the only West African state to not allow private TV or radio stations, they are going in the opposite direction as Sensenbrenner's criminalization efforts. The country's information minister is reportedly calling for the decriminalization of press 'offenses' for the print media.
No comments:
Post a Comment