H -°, L 23° | Tomorrow: 
H 23°, L 9°It was a time for celebration. Michael Powell, that ambitious beneficiary of nepotism, was stepping down from his post as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Never again would the U.S. broadcast airwaves face such authoritative scrutiny over what they were allowed to show the American people.
Brimming with dreams about new methods of censorship, Powell had been given a gift during his short tenure with the bureau: a general public apathetic, even welcoming, toward extended government control over the airwaves. Such an atmosphere had been brought about by the travesty of that fateful January day more than a year ago, when millions of people’s lives were shattered by the traumatizing realization that Janet Jackson had been hiding breasts underneath her shirt.
Seizing on his post-Super Bowl window of opportunity, Chairman Powell immediately went to work, transforming the FCC into an overzealous, all-encompassing arm of government surveillance. For example, according to The New York Times, 2004 saw the FCC propose $8 million in fines against television and radio stations, versus 2003’s paltry $440,000 in fines proposed by the commission. Not only had the rates of FCC fines exploded, but the types of broadcast offenses that could be penalized had expanded as well. However, with Powell’s resignation on Jan. 21, 2005, many expected changes to the way in which the FCC was run.
Enter Michael Powell’s replacement: Kevin J. Martin. Although few people were familiar with Mr. Martin, civil libertarians and proponents of freedom in general could only expect that he would be more sympathetic to their cause than the aggressive former Chairman Powell had been.
Unfortunately, thus far, Martin’s term as chairman has proven otherwise. In fact, not only has Mr. Martin retained Michael Powell’s stringent policies regarding public airwaves, but he has proposed extending the FCC’s jurisdiction to a far more sacred realm: the private sector.
Recently, Kevin Martin hinted at a personal desire that the FCC have the authority to apply its indecency rules to cable and satellite television. With this Orwellian idea, Martin has threatened encroachment on the liberties that most Americans hold dear. Regarding the First Amendment rights of cable and satellite television providers, Chairman Martin once stated, “They are limited by law. They also should be limited by good taste.” Good taste? I do not personally know the man, but judging by his insatiable appetite for censorship, if the “good taste” referenced is Mr. Martin’s own, then I would bet that cable and satellite television are about to undergo a massive overhaul.
Blurring the line between governance of public airwaves and governance of private communication could hypothetically open the floodgates for the FCC to exert its influence over everything that Americans watch, read and listen to. Imagine that you bought a CD (assuming you were in a store other than that bastion of morality known as Wal-Mart) only to bring it home and find that a panel of ethics moderators had decided to protect you from lyrics that had been deemed too controversial or profane for you to handle. Although this example is more tangible than that of cable television, there is no difference between the two. Similarly, if given authority to censor private broadcasting, what would stop the government from censoring books and movies?
It is naive to think that the FCC will get away with massive content censorship in the private realm and not face repercussions, but the issue at hand is a symbolic one. If the government grants itself the power to oversee cable and satellite television, then what is stopping it from testing whether or not it can do the same with regard to other media? It is essential that the general public always remain vigilant toward issues of government censorship. Apathy is the most potent threat to democracy, and if the FCC expands its authority with little or no public opposition, the United States is in deep trouble.
Rob Rossmeissl ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science.
IP hash: b33fa943
Wait till they crack down on cable TV or start cracking down on sat. radio. They have absolutely no authority over those two things but they have set their sights on them for future crack downs. They have the right to make network TV as squeaky clean as they want because it uses public airwaves, but once they start putting their hands in private, pay services that’s when I start to get very angry.
IP hash: bdff56e5
I agree that Powell weilded too heavy a hand at times, but I also think someone needed to step up and put entertainers on notice that you can’t just wrap yourself in the First Amendment in saying and doing anything you want in public forums. People have a right to not be exposed to smut, and these entertainers were increasingly moving into more public forums to give themselves a name.
That’s the unfortunately thing about this. Most of these episodes that drew the ire of the FCC were done for self-serving purposes, not in promotion of an idea or movement. Guys like Howard Stern and Janet Jackson should be held accountable for what they say on public airwaves.
It’s a fine line in determining what is “proper” and what isn’t, but I appluad Powell for standing up to Holywook and saying “Stop” even though I was never in 100% agreement with some of the moves he made while Chairman.
IP hash: b33fa943
While I personally love vulgarity it seems completely understandable to me that they would regulate network television and radio. It is after all public space (in America anyway). But it is complete bullshit to try and censor anything else outside the public sphere. Whether that is satallite radio, records, movies, or cable TV. They should have absolutely no hand in any venture outside of free, over the airwaves entertainment.
IP hash: ea5262a1
What a crock! You have to buy a device and tune in to things - if you don’t like them then tune out.
Nobody is forced to watch things, strapped in a chair with their eyes taped open (not yet anyway).
IP hash: 45502349
So I guess FOXCBSNBCABC owns the broadcast airways. We shouldn’t, heaven forbid, intrude on their right to broadcast anything. Let them broadcast profanity, excessive violence, and explicit sex. As long as they maintain their share in a very protected market, all is well with the world. We have absolutely no say in what they choose to air. Let’s then, for that matter, let me drive on the road anyway I feel like it. I own the roads. Drunk, sleeping, or stupid, I won’t be arrested because I have no responsibility to others. I own the roads. Since I own the lakes, too, I will pour any damn thing in them I feel like. How about mercury? I have a lot of old thermometers that are broken. To hell with the wildlife, I own the lakes. For that matter, let coal companies strip mine and paper companies clear cut old growth forests. They bought the land or have received contracts to harvest from public land; they have the right to do whatever they want to it. Corporate America, man. Corporate America. Let’s not be too quick to form a drum circle and walk around bearfoot because corporate America has absolute ownership of some of the resources it ruthlessly exploits. All is well.
Do you see how idiotic that line of reasoning is? Some things are owned publically, and for the sake of the public good, reasonable regulation MUST take place so that all can use and enjoy what is held in common.
IP hash: bb4e7f16
you’re fucked up rossmeissl
IP hash: 88e45ecf
… heh heh heh