Shock jocks none of Congress' business

Many politicians now complaining about indecency on television and radio are engaging in election-year posturing that could threaten freedom of expression, warns Bill Lee, professor in the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia, Athens. "The indecency feeding frenzy in Washington, D.C., is merely election-year posturing, a blatant appeal to 'family values' at the expense of freedom of expression."

Lee faults the Federal Communications Commission for not clearly defining indecency. FCC guidelines say that a television or radio broadcast will be found indecent if it, first, describes sexual or excretory organs or activities and, second, broadcasts material patently offensive as measured by a national standard.

"The FCC has failed to provide a clear definition of indecency. Terms such as 'patently offensive' are highly subjective," Lee contends. "The FCC's actions are reminiscent of Justice Potter Stewart's description of obscenity, 'I know it when I see it.'"

Lee points out that the FCC prohibits obscenity at any time and indecency between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., which is when children are likely to be watching or listening.

Political debate over broadcasters' responsibilities heated up after public complaints about half-time entertainment televised during the Super Bowl and later, the suspension of shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge and the fining of Howard Stern for material broadcast on radio.

Concludes Lee: "Broadcasters should be responsive to their audiences, not politicians using this issue as part of their reelection campaigns."

COPYRIGHT 2004 Society for the Advancement of Education
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group